So living constitution?
1 Like
What is âlivingâ are those who use their office of public trust to pretend the constitution means what they want it to mean.
JWK
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
Why would you not?
1 Like
Asking why pray for his health is not a hypothetical.
1 Like
Why would you not instead hope for leadership which abides by the constraints of our Constitution and advances the general welfare of the United States and her CITIZENS?
There is no better way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations of other countries. So why is the Democrat Party Leadership engaging in these very acts?
JWK
let us not forget during the coming election what the Revolutionary Democrat Party Leadership has done to our businesses, our families, our children and our homeland.
I donât pray. For anyone.
Allan
BINGO.
Things have changed slightly in the United States since 1787.
Allan
Thatâs why we need 5 realists on SCOTUS
Allan
You know you could do things the way it was intended to be done. Pass amendments.
Meh the power of article III was reas into the constitution like five minutes after its passing. Some of the signatories were still alive thenâŚ.
The issue isnât so much with a living constitution or a fundamentalist view of the constitution but that the living constitution allows for public polling to drive decision. This has been true with regard to the Supreme Court in every century. Dred Scott, brown versus board of Ed, and obergfell. I am not decrying the overall effect of the last two but the truth is that they were based on polling not state law. I would add Bush v gore in there too but thatâs going to open another can of worms
1 Like
Exactly! Article 5 was put into the Constitution to allow for change for changing times. But any change requires consent of the governed as outlined in the amendment process. And that is what our current crop of evil doers, including usurpers on our Supreme Court, detest with a passion and use their office of public trust to impost their personal predilections as the rule of law and to hell with a written constitution with defined and limited grants powers.
JWK
âIf the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?â___ Justice Story
His Watergate legacy sucked, along with his views as a judge. It was a troll nomination. But unlike Merrick Garland, Bork got a vote.
He even got a hearing.
1 Like
Nixon orders Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson refuses and resigns.
Nixon then orders Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus refuses and resigns.
Nixon then orders Solicitor General Robert Bork to fire Cox, which Bork does.
*Hey, You know who wonât be a controversial pick? That revanchist guy with no integrity who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (referring to its principle as one of âunsurpassed uglinessâ) and enabled Nixonâs Saturday Night Massacre.
1 Like
That isnât an explanation for you asking âwhy.â
Itâs nonsense, in my opinion.
Other do pray.
Each to his own is my motto
Allan
Then you should have stuck with that and not questioned the means and methods of others.
When will you ever learn Alan?
Where did I question you praying?
You are reading something that is not there.
Allan
Do you think your posts disappear like Snapchat?
1 Like
No they havenât.
