a reply to brother billy
http://christianconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/12/article-vi-of-us-constitution.html
The above link will take you to my post concerning Article VI of the Constitution and the Muslim Congressman from Minnesota. A gentleman named Brother Billy posted a comment that was generally positive, but he did take exception to my characterization of the phrase "living, breathing Constitution" as an invention of liberalism. Most of the people who disagree with me just call me dirty names, but Brother Billy was respectful (probably because he is a devout Christian) and he used facts, logic and reason to disagree with me. I thank you for all of that, Brother Billy. Because of that, I wanted to go deeper with my reply than I could in just a short comment. If you're going to respect me by not questioning my ancestry, I will respect you by giving a more thoughtful reply.
I stated that the phrase living, breathing Constitution" was code for "the Constitution means whatever liberals say it means." Brother Billy disagreed, but then said, "I think that means that there are elements in the Constitution that are imprecise and, indeed, 'relative'. They have to be re-adjudicated from time to time in a process of legal and cultural contention. I think that's a fairer presentation of 'the liberal view' than yours." With all due respect, sir, I believe you just proved my point. "The liberal view" is that the Constitution must be continually reinterpreted according to our thoughts and feelings of the moment. I would respectfully say that you simply restated my premise about the Constitution meaning whatever liberals say it means.
Next you said that neither the "left" or the "right" has a lock on this process. As "proof", you made reference to the Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886. This was the infamous case in which the Court unanimously held that a corporation was a person, just like a person is a person. Therefore, a corporation was owed the same 14th Amendment protections as a person. I'm familiar with the case, although I'm at a loss as to what this has to do with conservatism. The 1886 Supreme Court was a very liberal court. Throughout the 20th Century, the Court continued to the left, and I would say to the far left starting with Earl Warren. That's pretty simple. Liberals said that a corporation is a person, even though the Constitution says no such thing. I suspect you were hinting at the fact that, because corporations benefit from conservative tax cuts, that the Santa Clara decision was somehow a conservative decision. I'm sorry, Brother Billy, that dog won't hunt. By the way, I agree with you that the Santa Clara decision should be reversed. You can help make that happen by supporting a strong conservative like Newt Gingrich for President in 2008. He would appoint conservative justices to "get 'er done!"
At that point, you started talking about the imprecise language of the 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments. I believe your point was that it is impossible for us to know what the words in those amendments mean, so we are free to interpret them as we see fit. Brother Billy, that's liberalism making you say silly stuff like that! We know what the words mean because the writings of the Founding Fathers tell us.
1. The "excessive bail" mandate was modeled after the Excessive Bail Clause of the 1689 English Bill of Rights. It was a response to the practice of some judges to set bails high in order to avoid having to release defendants on writs of habeus corpus. The purpose of bail is to ensure a defendant's presence at trial, and it is calculated on that basis. We have hundreds of years of English common law and American jurisprudence to judge what "excessive bail" means. It's pretty precise.
2. The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause refers to tortuous punishments such as decapitation, disembowelment, pillorying, and drawing and quartering. It does not ban all forms of capital punishment, as the devotees of liberalism would have us believe. Go back and read the history and the writings of our Founding Fathers. It's all pretty specific.
3. The 9th Amendment is equally precise. Many of the delegates were against including a Bill of Rights with the Constitution. Why? Because they were afraid that a specific list of rights for "the people" would imply that, anything not on the list was automatically handed over to the government. This is the rule of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, and the Founding Fathers understood how dangerous this could be. In other words, "The Bill of Rights doesn't say the people have this right, so that means they don't have that right." Clearly, they anticipated the liberal tendency to snatch up any right which isn't nailed down! Go online sometime and read James Madison's remarks to the House when he introduced his resolutions for the bill of rights. It was meant as a guarantee that government would receive its power from the people, and a safeguard against government doling out rights to the people.
4. The 10th Amendment is the most precise of the lot. It says that if the Constitution doesn't delegate a certain power to the national government, and doesn't prohibit the states from exercising that same power, then that power is reserved for the states. That is clear, precise language not subject to interpretation. Alas, liberals don't see it that way. Over the course of the last 100 years, the 10th Amendment has been rendered impotent by one liberal Supreme Court after another, and by one liberal Congress after another, until now the states only have those powers which the federal government allows them to have. This is contrary to the wishes of the Founding Fathers, but very handy for establishing a secular progressive agenda that "we the people" won't have an opportunity to vote either for or against.
Those are the facts, sir. They may make you uncomfortable or angry, and you might not agree with them, but they are the facts, nonetheless. Please, I invite you to continue visiting my site. I have had 624 visitors since Thanksgiving, and I hope that everyone has been at least half-way entertained and half-way educated. A half and a half make a whole, and that's what makes the whole world round! (Sorry about that! I just watched one of those old Coke commercials on TV Land and it temporarily made me a liberal!)
I'd like to buy the world a home and furnish it with love,
Grow apple trees and honey bees, and snow white turtle doves.
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony,
I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company.
The above link will take you to my post concerning Article VI of the Constitution and the Muslim Congressman from Minnesota. A gentleman named Brother Billy posted a comment that was generally positive, but he did take exception to my characterization of the phrase "living, breathing Constitution" as an invention of liberalism. Most of the people who disagree with me just call me dirty names, but Brother Billy was respectful (probably because he is a devout Christian) and he used facts, logic and reason to disagree with me. I thank you for all of that, Brother Billy. Because of that, I wanted to go deeper with my reply than I could in just a short comment. If you're going to respect me by not questioning my ancestry, I will respect you by giving a more thoughtful reply.
I stated that the phrase living, breathing Constitution" was code for "the Constitution means whatever liberals say it means." Brother Billy disagreed, but then said, "I think that means that there are elements in the Constitution that are imprecise and, indeed, 'relative'. They have to be re-adjudicated from time to time in a process of legal and cultural contention. I think that's a fairer presentation of 'the liberal view' than yours." With all due respect, sir, I believe you just proved my point. "The liberal view" is that the Constitution must be continually reinterpreted according to our thoughts and feelings of the moment. I would respectfully say that you simply restated my premise about the Constitution meaning whatever liberals say it means.
Next you said that neither the "left" or the "right" has a lock on this process. As "proof", you made reference to the Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886. This was the infamous case in which the Court unanimously held that a corporation was a person, just like a person is a person. Therefore, a corporation was owed the same 14th Amendment protections as a person. I'm familiar with the case, although I'm at a loss as to what this has to do with conservatism. The 1886 Supreme Court was a very liberal court. Throughout the 20th Century, the Court continued to the left, and I would say to the far left starting with Earl Warren. That's pretty simple. Liberals said that a corporation is a person, even though the Constitution says no such thing. I suspect you were hinting at the fact that, because corporations benefit from conservative tax cuts, that the Santa Clara decision was somehow a conservative decision. I'm sorry, Brother Billy, that dog won't hunt. By the way, I agree with you that the Santa Clara decision should be reversed. You can help make that happen by supporting a strong conservative like Newt Gingrich for President in 2008. He would appoint conservative justices to "get 'er done!"
At that point, you started talking about the imprecise language of the 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments. I believe your point was that it is impossible for us to know what the words in those amendments mean, so we are free to interpret them as we see fit. Brother Billy, that's liberalism making you say silly stuff like that! We know what the words mean because the writings of the Founding Fathers tell us.
1. The "excessive bail" mandate was modeled after the Excessive Bail Clause of the 1689 English Bill of Rights. It was a response to the practice of some judges to set bails high in order to avoid having to release defendants on writs of habeus corpus. The purpose of bail is to ensure a defendant's presence at trial, and it is calculated on that basis. We have hundreds of years of English common law and American jurisprudence to judge what "excessive bail" means. It's pretty precise.
2. The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause refers to tortuous punishments such as decapitation, disembowelment, pillorying, and drawing and quartering. It does not ban all forms of capital punishment, as the devotees of liberalism would have us believe. Go back and read the history and the writings of our Founding Fathers. It's all pretty specific.
3. The 9th Amendment is equally precise. Many of the delegates were against including a Bill of Rights with the Constitution. Why? Because they were afraid that a specific list of rights for "the people" would imply that, anything not on the list was automatically handed over to the government. This is the rule of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, and the Founding Fathers understood how dangerous this could be. In other words, "The Bill of Rights doesn't say the people have this right, so that means they don't have that right." Clearly, they anticipated the liberal tendency to snatch up any right which isn't nailed down! Go online sometime and read James Madison's remarks to the House when he introduced his resolutions for the bill of rights. It was meant as a guarantee that government would receive its power from the people, and a safeguard against government doling out rights to the people.
4. The 10th Amendment is the most precise of the lot. It says that if the Constitution doesn't delegate a certain power to the national government, and doesn't prohibit the states from exercising that same power, then that power is reserved for the states. That is clear, precise language not subject to interpretation. Alas, liberals don't see it that way. Over the course of the last 100 years, the 10th Amendment has been rendered impotent by one liberal Supreme Court after another, and by one liberal Congress after another, until now the states only have those powers which the federal government allows them to have. This is contrary to the wishes of the Founding Fathers, but very handy for establishing a secular progressive agenda that "we the people" won't have an opportunity to vote either for or against.
Those are the facts, sir. They may make you uncomfortable or angry, and you might not agree with them, but they are the facts, nonetheless. Please, I invite you to continue visiting my site. I have had 624 visitors since Thanksgiving, and I hope that everyone has been at least half-way entertained and half-way educated. A half and a half make a whole, and that's what makes the whole world round! (Sorry about that! I just watched one of those old Coke commercials on TV Land and it temporarily made me a liberal!)
I'd like to buy the world a home and furnish it with love,
Grow apple trees and honey bees, and snow white turtle doves.
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony,
I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company.
posted by hondo at 8:26 PM
1 Comments:
Thanks for your reply to my comments on Article VI.
I have to take issue with you, however, on every point.
In charging that I simply restated your "premise about the constitution meaning whatever liberals say it means", you don't give adequate weight to my words about "cultural and legal contention".
What that means is that liberals don't get to say what it means.
Instead, meanings get established in a series of fights over the interpretation of language, over original context (or "intention"), and over how to apply that language and those intentions to new kinds of conditions and situations.
The fact is that interpretations of the Constitution vary, even among devotees of the document -- just as interpretations of the Bible differ even among the most pious and devout, throughout the centuries.
Naturally, there are going to constitutional battles over how old principles are to be applied to new situations.
"Thoughts and feelings of the moment" are involved, to be sure, but more than momentary fashions and whims can be involved. There are lasting technological and institutional changes (themselves heavily influenced by technological changes) that give rise to new thoughts, feelings, and reasoned judgments.
These kinds of changes are always contentious. Legislatures and courts wind up dealing with them.
An example that comes right to mind is the issue of electronic communications, surveillance, and search warrants.
The innovation in "living, breathing" constitutional interpretation that the president is promoting is that search warrants, given the nature of the newer technologies, are inappropriate restrictions on legitimate governmental actions to maintain domestic security.
This is certainly not an issue that "the framers" (and ratifiers) could have foreseen. It requires a decision. It's contentious. Courts will rule on it. The Constitution, thus, will continue to live and breathe and be subject to interpretation and re-interpretation.
I have much more to say but it's very late at night. I'll come back to this later. I'll try to convince you that the Supreme Court's establishment of "corporate personhood" wasn't a "liberal" position.
(I make a practice of putting "liberal" and some other political labels in quotes because I think their meaning is quite imprecise.)
Peace be with you.....
Post a Comment
<< Home