In response to:

Random Thoughts

Happy Jake Wrote: Oct 16, 2012 5:56 AM
"Whenever you hear people talking about "a living Constitution," almost invariably they are people who are in the process of slowly killing it by "interpreting" its restrictions on government out of existence." I don't know where I heard this, it might even have been from Dr. Sowell, but I recall someone once saying something to the effect of: If a word or a document can mean anything, it means nothing. Thus, if the Constitution can mean whatever the judge ruling on it chooses, it has no meaning, and, thus, no authority.
Illbay Wrote: Oct 16, 2012 12:01 PM
"...if the Constitution can mean whatever the judge ruling on it chooses, it has no meaning, and, thus, no authority."

Which is PRECISELY the idea behind the notion of the "living, breathing Constitution." Remember Obama's 2000 NPR interview where he admitted the Consitutition's limits on government power was a HUGE road-block to the progressive agenda?
absinthe48 Wrote: Oct 16, 2012 7:18 AM
The notion that the law means "what the judges say it means" began, I think, with the "legal realists" who came into power with the New Deal, ca. 1935. I associate it with Dean Pound. Crunch time came when President Eisenhower used federal troops to enforce a federal decree that was clearly unconstitutional, in Little Rock ca. 1957. In the Brown decision of 1954, the Supreme Court did not even hide the fact that they were usurping powers not granted to them under our founding charter. Little Rock was a small step for a vulnerable negro child, but a giant step for socialistic, centralized, one-world dictatorship, to be enforced at the point of a federal bayonet.
Illbay Wrote: Oct 16, 2012 12:01 PM
Well...except Jefferson began to sound the alarm immediately after Marbury v. Madison.
Illbay Wrote: Oct 16, 2012 12:04 PM
And you cannot say that the Federal government has no role in enforcing the Constitution. Brown v. Board of Education was a reversal of the earlier Plessy v. Ferguson. Are you saying the latter was appropriate but the former was not?

I'm sorry, but I expect the Constitution's principles to be enforced by the government, and I expect the states not to abrogate the Federal Constitution's limits, which is what the former slaveholding states of the Confederacy were attempting to do.
same10 Wrote: Oct 16, 2012 10:04 PM
Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Not since the days of slavery have there been so many people who feel entitled to what other people have produced as there are in the modern welfare state, whether in Western Europe or on this side of the Atlantic.

Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama's claims about "creating jobs" with one plain and inescapable fact -- "there hasn't been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office." Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have...