We all serve, in our own way ;)
Part of what I'm "blaming" is the attitude that you've exhibited, namely that there can be no such thing as an objectively knowable meaning to the Constitution. Many people have allowed themselves to accept that as well, and therein lies the abdication that you've referred to.
Ah, except that I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that this objectively knowable meaning of the Constitution will always take a back seat to what people believe the meaning of the Constitution is. By all means, expound upon the objective meaning until you are blue in the face. But at the end of the day, simply having the objective meaning is not enough - you have to persuade people about that objective meaning. And I think that's a much more difficult task than you admit to.
But I am a pragmatist by nature - if it turns out that pursuing the "objective meaning" angle best achieves our common goals, I'm right there beside you. At the moment, I don't think it does, so I prefer the "let's do it this way, and you'll have a better life as a result" approach. As nice as it would be if people voted with their heads, as you advocate, the reality is that a great many of them vote with their stomachs, and so I appeal to the stomach as best I can, by showing the good things that will come about from some particular change, rather than selling right-thinking as an end unto itself. And as long as we both get from "A" to "B", who really cares if we take different paths to get there?
I see no evidence of the latter, other than purely token sops like United States vs. Lopez that have no effect on anything.
Patience. Lopez is a big deal if you look at it in historical context. Remember what happened in 1937, and how I said that the Court was only now beginning to recover? The law has a long, long memory, and things like that are not easily forgotten by judges, nor should they be.
By the way, you said there was a point to your question regarding where states obtain plenary powers to legislate in various types of matters. Did I give you the answer you were looking for?
In a manner of speaking. By way of a followup, why does a state constitution's grant of plenary power trump the federal constitution's guarantee of certain unenumerated rights? What exactly are those unenumerated rights?
Ah, except that I'm not saying that.
General_re at #1195: "I dispute right off the bat this contention that there is any way of knowing 'for a fact' that something is Constitutional or not, other than in the sorts of law-school hypotheticals where the law is literally antonymous to the Constitution - the sorts of hypothetical cases that don't actually exist in reality, IOW"
And again at #1197: "what is the practical value of a fixed meaning if it is essentially unknowable?"
Do you renounce these statements? If not, then you are "saying that."
But at the end of the day, simply having the objective meaning is not enough - you have to persuade people about that objective meaning. And I think that's a much more difficult task than you admit to.
Apparently it's a more difficult task than you say I admit to, but in fact I haven't made any statements regarding the difficulty. I only say that it's necessary. But in any case, you're right that I have to persuade people about that objective meaning, and I'm attempting to start with you. But that first involves getting you to understand that there is such a thing as an objectively knowable meaning to the Constitution, since you're "not saying" that there isn't, it looks like we can finally begin!
By way of a followup, why does a state constitution's grant of plenary power trump the federal constitution's guarantee of certain unenumerated rights? What exactly are those unenumerated rights?
It's important for the sake of clarity for me to make the distinction between the pre-1868 Constitution and the post-1868 version. Even though we appear to be living in the post-1868 era, I don't think we can do justice to the present version without first looking at the original.
Under the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. There's no controversy surrounding that fact. So whether you're talking about enumerated or unenumerated rights, the states were at liberty (as far as federal law was concerned) to define the full extent of them for themselves. Thus, the 2nd amendment could easily be read as a comprehensive ban on all federal laws tending to disarm citizens of any type of weapons, as the states would still be able to curtail private possession of the most dangerous types.