[Congressman Billybob]

The Incorporation Doctrine, to which you object, has been settled law for seventy years, and any Justice who tried to decide the case on that basis would have been laughed out of Court. That leaves the plain language and intent of the Fifth Amendment's property rights to resist the land grab.

Asking for what is impossible is not a productive approach. Asking for what is possible, enforcing the Fifth Amendment, is the better approach. That is the way this case will be cut down in future cases. See the history of Plessy v. Ferguson as a template for change in the Supreme Court as better thinking appears among the Justices.

John / Billybob

[billbears]

The Incorporation Doctrine, to which you object, has been settled law for seventy years, and any Justice who tried to decide the case on that basis would have been laughed out of Court. That leaves the plain language and intent of the Fifth Amendment's property rights to resist the land grab.

Ridiculous. First off, as it pertains to the Fifth Amendment, the incorporation doctrine was originally justified in 1897 by Blackmun I believe. Scalia also spoke out against that decision in one of his own just a few years ago.

But by your argument, any doctrine that has been 'settled', if for a specific time, should apparently be left alone. Does that mean Roe v Wade should never be overturned? Not going to get very far down the path to returning to a Constitutional government if we allow that.

Asking for what is impossible is not a productive approach. Asking for what is possible, enforcing the Fifth Amendment, is the better approach.

Okay. Let's play it your way then. More centralization of power than the Framers intended. Applying the Constitution to the separate and sovereign states, another travesty in the eyes of the Framers (see #45). Allowing federal courts to oversee and review state decisions. Again another no-no to the Framers (see #78 and #81).

I tell you what. Let's just throw out the Federalist papers and parts of the Constitution that fly in the face of what you call 'conservative' and continue our compromise down the road to hell shall we? After all, a Republican is picking the SCOTUS judge so that makes practically anyone he decides on as an acceptable 'conservative'. Nothing may be done immediately by asking for the impossible. Continuing down a partisan path that so many desire and refusing to educate the general public (which after reading your article may include you, sorry but I call it as I see it) on the intent and limitations of the Constitution, 'conservatives' will be no better than the liberals they despise.

Asking for what is impossible may not be a productive approach. But what has gotten us to this point is asking only for what is possible. And I wouldn't call that productive in the least