Tag Archives: Constitution

Originalism is Bullshit!

The Founders … Founding.

Amy Coney Barrett considers herself a “Constitutional Originalist.” What, exactly, does that mean? According to Merriam-Webster, it is “a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written.” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/originalism)

Think about what that means. If we are to interpret the Constitution based on the realities of the day in the late 18th century, then shouldn’t the only people allowed to vote in national elections be white, property-owning men? What do we make of the 3/5 clause of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and how do we reconcile the 14th Amendment (passed in 1868) with the “original” intent of said Article?

In my less than humble opinion, this concept of originalism is as flawed as belief in the Bible being the infallible word of God. Both require one NOT believe in evolution; I don’t here mean biological evolution (which many Bible believers don’t recognize as real) but the natural evolution of society and its economic, political, and general attitudes toward what’s good and just for a people. Our laws, our habits, our customs, our culture, even our morals change over time; sometimes imperceptibly and others rapidly and definitively.

When the Constitution was written, the framers included (Article V) the ability to amend it and, in fact, the first ten amendments—the Bill of Rights—were needed to ensure adoption of the nascent Constitution by some of the States who wanted more guarantees of freedom from unnecessary restrictions on the States and individuals.

Inasmuch as there is a method by which the Constitution can and, in fact, has been amended how can a logical argument be sustained that it must be interpreted in light of the reality of nearly two hundred fifty years ago? This makes absolutely no sense. Two hundred fifty years ago virtually none of the structures, organizations, and technologies we currently enjoy existed. How do we interpret their use and ownership if they weren’t around when the document was written?

Originalism is a sham argument and should be completely ignored. Any jurist taking such a position is, IMLTHO, an intellectually dishonest poseur and should be ignored . . . if not ridiculed. This includes Amy Coney Barrett who, if she had any integrity at all, would not allow this raw power grab and farce of a nomination process to continue.


So Sue Me.

Got my Antifa membership card today.

Count Me In!

Be Safe! ¡Cuidate!

This weekend Trump is threatening mass deportations . . . again! It may not happen. However, if it does here’s some information you or someone you know may want to have available. One of the hallmarks of our nation is the concept of the rule of law, which means nobody is above the law; neither is anyone outside the law. Every “person” enjoys the rights afforded them by the Constitution of the United States. We’re all entitled to due process and the equal application of the law. Know your rights . . . and be thankful we have an organization like the ACLU that fights for them, incessantly. They’re one of five organizations I donate to monthly. Please consider sending them a few bucks to support their work. And please consider sharing this info with someone you know who might benefit from it. Thank you.


So Sorry. No Deathstar This Year

Deathstar

Alas! A Dream Not to be.

As many of you may or may not know, the White House has a system whereby anyone can ” . . . petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Loosely translated, as it surely is, this means you can ask for just about anything your little ol’ pea-pickin’ heart desires even if what you really mean by “grievance” is “I wanna”. However, there’s a catch or, should I say, a couple of catches.

First of all, you need to create an account at Whitehouse.gov. This is so, regardless of the aluminum foil on your windows and the tin foil hat blocking those priceless brainwaves of yours, the government will be able to track you down and whisk you away in a black helicopter to an undisclosed and unknowable location where people like you can be dealt with appropriately.

OK, so I made that up . . . though it’s true if you’re a member of the Tea Party. Maybe it’s true. More likely, petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is serious business, shouldn’t be taken lightly, and there has to be a way to keep people from signing petitions more than once. This seems eminently reasonable, don’t you think? Never mind. It’s a rhetorical question.

Also, there are two thresholds that must be reached for a petition to be taken seriously. The first is that it must get 150 signatures within 30 days for it to be searchable on WhiteHouse.gov’s site. The second is that it must  reach 25,000 signatures within the next 30 days for it to receive a response, though the administration reserves the right to answer at a lower participation if it deems it appropriate.

Why am I telling you this? Well, actually not because I’m cajoling you to participate. Don’t get me  wrong, I think participatory democracy is important, maybe even essential, but my feeling is this is even more important. No . . . this is a rather long-winded way of sharing my favorite petition with you and, more importantly, the answer it received.

The administration asks that each petition complete the following phrase, “We believe the Obama administration should . . . “. Recently a petition completed that phrase as follows – “Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016” – and received 34,435 signature, reaching the second critical threshold and requiring an answer. The answer was entitled “This Isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For” and begins:

The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn’t on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:

  • The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We’re working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
  • The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
  • Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

. . .

You can read the rest, which is well worth your time (especially if you’re a dweebed-out space cadet like I am), at the site. I think it’s a – you’ll pardon the expression – stellar response.


%d bloggers like this: