Liberals, because they won’t accept the idea that God saved us, they must present their works as a substitute. So, they believe if they can create a saved world, they can present themselves before God for what they have done.
I’m coming around to the idea that when Christ said, “I never knew you.” to those who claim to have fed the poor and hungry, they may not have been lying. It’s just that operated under a spirit of self-salvation.
The constitution has a way to amend it, they just don’t like it....too difficult
Clashes of visions alway end up being solved in the same way. Read and heed my tagline.
"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
"3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Insights welcome.
Also, Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
It seems to me to be a clash between honest understanding and interpretation of what the Constitution actually says, and a squirrel-y dishonest one in which it says what some would prefer it said.
SUMMARY: The rule of law vs the rule of men
There Are Two Fundamentally Irreconcilable Constitutional Visions
/\
1 Plain Meaning Truth
2 Commie Dog Faced living breathing leg humping lie.
I would tighten that up to- the unconstrained vision of arbitrary power v the vision of zero arbitrary power.
the Constitution is an impediment to their socialist paradise
The second one is not a “Constitutional” vision at all.
Split it up. That won’t stop war from coming, but it will slow it down some. Time to split it up. It’s all falling apart anyway.
We need a divorce 🤪
Constitution bookmark.
JAMBOG.
There Are Two Fundamentally Irreconcilable Constitutional Visions
07/02/2022 6:54:30 AM PDT · by MtnClimber · 51 replies
Manhattan Contrarian ^ | 1 Jul, 2022 | Francis Menton
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4075583/posts
Scalia and Thomas, for example, although both staunch originalists differed at times. In the latter phase of Scalia's tenure he sometimes described himself as a "textualist" in preference to the term originalist due to the risks of getting lost in the weeds of often poorly documented original intent. As Justice Hugo Black emphasized in an earlier era, the text of the Constitution itself is the best and mot powerful guide to what the Framers intended.
Scalia saw constitutional precedents of long tenure of 75 years or more as having acquired a reliance interest that made them near untouchable because they had become part of the country's understanding of the Constitution. Thomas though would accord no value to long tenure and would overturn precedents if they were shown to be wrong.
Notably, the "living document" theory of the Constitution suffers from an inherent contradiction in that, just as changes in tide and current can reshape a coastline, so also is a living Constitution subject to reinterpretation that erodes or abandons old precedents. This reduces all liberal victories to being little more than jottings on sand when a determined conservative majority is installed on the Supreme Court.
Another dimension of Constitutional law often missed by the public is that some Supreme Court decisions are bad because they are badly reasoned or set out unsound or unworkable rules of decision for specific cases. Should the Court establish a hard and fast rule with no exceptions? Or if there should be exceptions, should they be few or many? Should there be a balancing test, or a bright line?
In practice, out of a sense of restraint, the Court usually leaves as much as it can to be elaborated in later cases so that experience may help to illuminate those kinds of issues and build support for the Court's approach.
Some justices are lunkheads about those sorts of issues, or are bad writers, are unpleasant personalities, are shady operators, or just seem lost as to how the Supreme Court works in concept and in practice. Those with great reputations in their day may fade over time or even be exposed as unethical after they are dead.
As much as the Left hates Justice Thomas, they seem to be recognizing just how influential he has become, both intellectually and in the respect and liking that he enjoys with his colleagues. Justice Thomas has become the dominant Justice on the Supreme Court. The Republic may yet be saved.
Great article
READ LATER.
The leftists on SCOTUS have all clearly stated:
“Our seat is a political one, and our arguments are purely political. The Law, the Constitution, mean nothing to us.”
The dissenting comments are legislative arguments, not judicial arguments.
Pretty cut and dried.
Two (or more) groups can have different opinions. But, not on facts. Or truth. There is no “your truth”, there is simply truth/fact.
If one side of an argument bases its opinions on a falsehood, make no compromises with them. They are WRONG!