Why Care What The Constitution Says?

The Autonomist ^ | Randy Barnett

[NMC EXP]

The Constitution that was actually enacted and formally amended creates islands of government powers in a sea of liberty. The judicially redacted constitution creates islands of liberty rights in a sea of governmental powers

It was a fine plan but like Joe Sobran said:

"The Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government."

Regards

J.R.

[Richard Kimball]

Ken & tpaine,
First, I have no doubt that both of you have read the book, and I noted that Bork was not popular with many Freepers. His book, though, includes a very good history for the layman of judicial activism. I have always found it odd, that as a proponent of "original intent", he could take the stand he does on the 2nd. I wasn't implying that I agree with all of his stands, simply that his book is a good read.

[Long Cut]

In a time when both the extreme Right AND Left will happily restrict those individual liberties that they personally disagree with, and the "mushy middle" cares not as long as they get to watch "Survivor" this week, what chance does the Constitution have?

The Supreme Court, and to some extent lesser courts, have gathered to themselves the sole ability to say what it means. Thus, we are moving to a point in which only ideologues of either side will be considered for appointment.

Will all our liberties reside in the hands therefore of the most ideologically extreme among us? Both Right AND Left would strip from us essential liberties that "offend" them.

Personally, I would not wish to live in a Utopia designed by either Jerry Falwell OR Tom Daschle.

[tpaine]

Richard Kimball wrote:

I have always found it odd, that as a proponent of "original intent", he could take the stand he does on the 2nd.

______________________________________


To my mind Bork has the same misconception of original intent that many conservative FReepers do..

He, and they, somehow truly believe that 'legally' empowered groups can over-regulate, even prohibit, an individuals private, nonviolent, consensual actions & possessions.

They base this 'community power' on majority rule doctrine, and ignore our obvious individual rights to life, liberty & property under the rule of constitutional law.

[beavus]

In a footnote on page 166, Judge Bork writes that ``the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.

There aren't enough stealth bombers to beat an unarmed mass uprising let alone one armed with rifles. The best it could do is nip uprisings in the bud and hope the nipping intimidated other buds from emerging.

The US easily had the N. Vietnamese outarmed.

CotUS or no, it ultimately comes down to the character of the citizenry and its leaders. The CotUS either matches that character, or the CotUS will ultimately be ignored or changed.

[Badray]

Bump for later.

[jonestown]

Bookmark bump.

[Badray]

Thanks for the ping.

Bumping for later.

[tacticalogic]

This debate never ends. There is always somebody that wants to change or ignore the Constitution, or misread it to suit the issue of the moment. These interpreters come from the Left, the Right, the Bush Moderate Compassionate Middle, and radicals at anarchists' secret meetings in suburban basements.

I'll wager you'll have no trouble finding people on this very forum who'll cheer Mr. Barnett's observations on the Second Amendment, and then trash him for defending Raisch.