Progressive Constitutionalist versus Originalist Constitutionalist

[Catatonic]

Like I said before this wasn’t meant to be about abortion spciifically. I used it as an example of activist judges that ignore the constitution in favor of their personal views.

This was during the Warren Supreme Court ... Warren’s name is often used as a pseudonym for Leftist Activist Judges.
Just as Rehnquist’s Supreme Court is a pseudonym for Conservative Activist Judges.

Both were Disloyal to the Constitution.

 

[BakerMayfield2018]

This was during the Warren Supreme Court ... Warren’s name is often used as a pseudonym for Leftist Activist Judges.
Just as Rehnquist’s Supreme Court is a pseudonym for Conservative Activist Judges.

Both were Disloyal to the Constitution.

 

[It will be fine]

WRONG

Stop posting lies!
Post reported!!!!!

To @Turdferguson​

Your alter ego already got upset about this one. I don’t understand how anyone thinks any judge doesn’t interpret the constitution. It’s just a bizarre, clearly inaccurate belief.

 

[BrownArmy]

And these states will lean towards liberal/urban tendencies.
These people, like the left today, will want to ignore the Constitution and make new laws through the Judicial and Executive branches.
The real issue is that we are citizens of the United States of America .
The issue is that the Constitution is designed to give power to States and protect individuals.
Amendment 17 took a swipe at this but didn’t really do much.

So I believe your ‘problematic’ concern is that 70% of the people will be underrepresented looking at it from the individual POV.
However, the Constitution does exactly what it was designed to do and that is to equalize power amongst the states.

In other words, all the rancor we are experiencing now will get worse.

And these states will lean towards liberal/urban tendencies.
These people, like the left today, will want to ignore the Constitution and make new laws through the Judicial and Executive branches.
The real issue is that we are citizens of the United States of America .
The issue is that the Constitution is designed to give power to States and protect individuals.
Amendment 17 took a swipe at this but didn’t really do much.

So I believe your ‘problematic’ concern is that 70% of the people will be underrepresented looking at it from the individual POV.
However, the Constitution does exactly what it was designed to do and that is to equalize power amongst the states.

In other words, all the rancor we are experiencing now will get worse.

FFS, it’s 2018.

The inevitable result is that the absolute minority will control the maximum majority.

You say, ‘The Constitution is the equalizer’ to make States equivalent, but we’re working toward a situation where what the Founders instituted as a ‘check’ will instead reverse itself.

It won’t be the ‘tyranny’ of the minority vs. the ‘tyranny’ of the majority, it will just be a complete c-friend.

I love the Constitution, etc., but...

There’s no mechanism in the Constitution to keep us from strangling each other.

Well, there is, it’s Congress, but Congress can’t find it’s d in the dark.

More power is being consolidated in the Executive, Legislative has Alzheimers, and the Judicial is going off on weird math problems no one cares about.

I love the American experiment, but there’s no guarantee it will last forever.

 

[El Correcto]

FFS, it’s 2018.

The inevitable result is that the absolute minority will control the maximum majority.

You say, ‘The Constitution is the equalizer’ to make States equivalent, but we’re working toward a situation where what the Founders instituted as a ‘check’ will instead reverse itself.

It won’t be the ‘tyranny’ of the minority vs. the ‘tyranny’ of the majority, it will just be a complete c-friend.

I love the Constitution, etc., but...

There’s no mechanism in the Constitution to keep us from strangling each other.

Well, there is, it’s Congress, but Congress can’t find it’s d in the dark.

More power is being consolidated in the Executive, Legislative has Alzheimers, and the Judicial is going off on weird math problems no one cares about.

I love the American experiment, but there’s no guarantee it will last forever.

Have you seen article five in the constitution?
Convention of states.

 

[BrownArmy]

Have you seen article five in the constitution?
Convention of states.

Yes, for all intents and purposes, it’s irrelevant.

 

[El Correcto]

Yes, for all intents and purposes, it’s irrelevant.

Only cause dum dum are happy with states losing power and federal tyranny they can aim at the other side.

 

[El Correcto]

I’d think we’d all be happier if people in California weren’t dictating the entire country on who can use which restroom.

 

[BrownArmy]

Only cause dum dum are happy with states losing power and federal tyranny they can aim at the other side.

Maybe, maybe not, can you imagine enough states agreeing to do anything these days?

Machine guns for everyone?

Abortion on demand?

Squash the ‘Citizens United’ decision?

One person, one vote?

You’re high if you think any amendment to the Constitution would fly these days.

So much division.

 

[BrownArmy]

I’d think we’d all be happier if people in California weren’t dictating the entire country on who can use which restroom.

On a side note, why does anyone care about that?

Why do you care about that?

 

[El Correcto]

Maybe, maybe not, can you imagine enough states agreeing to do anything these days?

Machine guns for everyone?

Abortion on demand?

Squash the ‘Citizens United’ decision?

One person, one vote?

You’re high if you think any amendment to the Constitution would fly these days.

So much division.

We could start by repealing the fourteenth amendment and the sixteenth amendment.
Seems like rock solid ideas.

 

[El Correcto]

On a side note, why does anyone care about that?

Why do you care about that?

I care because it should be a non issue that is taking up time in the public debates.

 

[Yaba Daba Do]

On a side note, why does anyone care about that?

Why do you care about that?

Because a 30 year old man doesn’t belong in a stall next to a 6 year old little girl.

 

[BrownArmy]

We could start by repealing the fourteenth amendment and the sixteenth amendment.
Seems like rock solid ideas.

Are you into guns?

If the gun-rights argument is that more restrictive gun laws against law-abiding gun owners isn’t the point, how is it the point to restrict otherwise law-abiding trans folk from using the bathroom of their choice?

I’m white and hetero, and I don’t quite understand ‘trans’ or ‘gender dysmorphia’, but why not just call it even?

Civil rights.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Your alter ego already got upset about this one. I don’t understand how anyone thinks any judge doesn’t interpret the constitution. It’s just a bizarre, clearly inaccurate belief.

I didn’t realize I was logged in as MB ... my bad.

 

[El Correcto]

Are you into guns?

If the gun-rights argument is that more restrictive gun laws against law-abiding gun owners isn’t the point, how is it the point to restrict otherwise law-abiding trans folk from using the bathroom of their choice?

I’m white and hetero, and I don’t quite understand ‘trans’ or ‘gender dysmorphia’, but why not just call it even?

Civil rights.

I don’t care what bathroom they use. That should be up to the business owner. It’s his property and his bathroom. The government doesn’t own it.

Or hers

 

[BrownArmy]

Because a 30 year old man doesn’t belong in a stall next to a 6 year old little girl.

We already have laws against that.

Lots of hyperbole and misinformation, at the end of the day, if there’s a gender dysmorphic dude who should have been a woman, who are you to say?

Clue phone’s ringing, the trans (?) folk who just want to sit down/stand up when they pee, or whatever, they’re just looking for acceptance, and probably a normalization of their experience.

Bathrooms are the new water fountains?

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I’m white and hetero, and I don’t quite understand ‘trans’ or ‘gender dysmorphia’, but why not just call it even?

Exactly the opposite of Mak!

 

[BrownArmy]

I don’t care what bathroom they use. That should be up to the business owner. It’s his property and his bathroom. The government doesn’t own it.

Or hers

Wow, you’re straight out of 1956.

(It’s 2018)

 

[BrownArmy]

Exactly the opposite of Mak!

Irrelevant.