The U.S. Constitution was written over 200 years ago by white men who owned slaves. We shouldn't take it too seriously unless we can attack the other party for violating our interpretation. When literal interpretation works to our benefit, we should embrace a literal interpretation. Otherwise, we should start with our political beliefs and find a creative way to interpret the constitution to get a match. We will refer to inaccurate partisan interpretations as a living constitution.
Obviously, I don't agree with this crap. The Democrats clearly do. Typical of the Democrats, they can't even seem to get their own views straight.
Take a look at Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court justices ruled that the right to privacy implied by due process required all states to openly support abortions. They also created a framework regarding when the right to privacy should legalize the procedure. This was clearly judicial activism.
The constitution makes it quite clear that abortions are not a federal issue. The constitution does not cover abortions. According to the 10th amendment, this makes it a state issue.
When the Supreme Court overturned this obvious abuse of power, Democrats pushed the narrative that the constitution should not be taken literally. Having a conservative Supreme Court insisting that they didn't have the power to control law nationwide was deemed authoritarian overreach.
When an "independent" Democrat complained about this ruling, I quickly pointed out what the constitution said. My comment was countered with the age of the document. After Roe v. Wade claimed to be about the constitution, we were now supposed to completely ignore it. This was never about pro-choice versus pro-life. This was about judicial activism versus the constitution.
Compare this to the views of Democrats regarding election reform. They are trying to find a way to circumvent the current election model by colluding with like-minded states. If they have their way, different states with different elections will have their votes added together. Colluding states will then use their electoral votes to dictate nationwide outcomes based on their standards.
The constitution does not explicitly forbid this action, but let's see this for what it really is. Democrats are looking for loopholes that will allow them to replace the process outlined in the constitution. They outright reject the idea that others should be able to interpret the law beyond what is explicitly stated, even when there is a clear violation of the spirit of the constitution.
Personally, I believe there is some room for interpretation, but I strictly oppose creative interpretation of the constitution. I also believe that the role of the Supreme Court should be to determine the legality of various conflicts. Since the constitution is law, this should be the basis of most rulings. The spirit of the law can be considered as long as this isn't used as an excuse to defy what is actually the constitution.
I have long insisted that the most underrated idea that our founding fathers had was to ensure we had a way to change the constitution. Democrats are right when they insist that a document that is over 200 years old does not properly reflect what's best today. That doesn't invalidate the constitution, but we can do something about it. Instead of looking for ways to circumvent the constitution, we can change it. If we really want to legalize abortions at the federal level, that is our only legal option. This is also our only option if we want meaningful election reform.
Let me ask Democrats a quick question. Do the words of the U.S. Constitution matter? Yes or no? Make up your mind. It shouldn't matter when it benefits your political beliefs and brushed aside when inconvenient. Yes, there are inconsistencies among Republicans, but the wild swings among Democrats are driving me nuts.
No comments:
Post a Comment