Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Moron Mail


[shaking head]:

It's the 21st century

While I am tired of hearing what millionaires believe, there is entertaining irony in former state Republican Party Chair William Cooper's commentary ("Forget a 'living Constitution,' and stick to actual text," Oct. 9).

Cooper asserts that if the Supreme Court perceives the Constitution as a "living document," then "we don't have any constitution at all."

Right -- we are to govern our lives in 2005 by strict interpretation of text written in the 18th century by guys who thought slaves were a good idea, women had no position in society and the United States ended just over the Appalachians.

Wi11i@m H3^ry, Arden Hills.

[rolling eyes]...


[opens mouth to speak, but the words do not come]...

[shakes head again]...


[pinches bridge of nose]

[reaches for cricket bat but withdraws hand, thinking better of it for the moment]...


[looks at feet, for a final, pregnant pause]


While I am tired of hearing what drooling imbeciles from Arden Hills who - as revealed by their idiotic letters to the editor - know nothing about which they opine believe, there is an entertaining irony in this moron's letter.

I'll try to dumb it down so that people like Bill here can understand. I do realize that may be a fool's errand.

Here's a question I'm sure few have asked themselves:

What is "law"?

I'll pause while you ponder.


There are as many answers to that question as there are readers of this blog (14). I submit to you the following definition of law, which provides a good starting point for this tirade:

The "law" is a social contract among and between the citizens of a free, self determined society that provides guidelines and limits as to the relationships between the citizens themselves and between the citizens and their government.

When we speak of Constitutional law, we speak of the rules governing the relationship between the citizens and their government. This compact - this Constitution - was written in such a manner as to allow it to conform with the changing realities that come with the passage of long expanses of time. It dictates a framework to self governance, not a guide to public policy. That is the whole point for requiring the consent of two houses of Congress and the President to discern what exactly public policy is, and to pass laws to realize the policy. And for those things that fall outside the federal ambit, the states retain sovereign powers under their own constitutions.

This is the contract to which the citizens of a nascent Unitest States agreed, binding all subsequent generations. Including ours.

The framers also recognized that the passage of time would require changes to the framework. So to that end, the Constitution could be said to be a "living, breathing document".

[Gasps from KARnation]

It can be found in Article V:

[Sighs of relief from KARnation]

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Since the first 10 Amendments were added to the Constitution as a compromise for its ratification, it has taken 16 other "breaths".

Three of those breaths blew slavery inequality among the citizens of this country right out of the picture.

Until the Supreme Court screwed it up with the whole "separate but equal" nonsense. (That'd be Plessy v. Fergusson for those of you who are as well-informed as Bill the Idiot Letter Writer.)

So let's tick off the ways one might guarantee, say, a privacy right under the law:

* We could amend the Constitution;

* Congress could pass a law and apply it to the states via the Commerce Clause (don't laugh - it could happen - see certain applications of the Civil Rights Act);

* The States could pass a law or state Constitutional provision guaranteeing such a right (and many have, actually).

This, Bill, is called "government deriving its power from the consent of the governed".

But what Bill wants is 9 for judges (well, actually 5) to determine and implement public policy - based on "2005 standards," whatever the hell those are - in lieu of all those other methods that already exist. In short, Bill wants an oligarchy.

Bill wants Iran.

Let's revisit that final, smug sentence in that uniformed pile of crap that someone deemed worthy of placement in the marketplace of ideas:

Right -- we are to govern our lives in 2005 by strict interpretation of text written in the 18th century by guys who thought slaves were a good idea, women had no position in society and the United States ended just over the Appalachians.

Ah, there's the irony:

In Bill's concept of freedom, equality, and liberty, he would strip power from the citizenry and grant it to 9 (actually 5) unelected people. Bill wants to rewrite the contract without the consent of all parties involved.

Yeah, that's not at all evil.

No comments: