A Not So Modest Proposal.

[BlackShanglan]

This concept is much easier to grasp if one does not carry the burden of either a supreme being or a concept containing the greater good that exists as a higher value than the individuality of man.

Well, let's go noodge at this, then.

Why is this the greatest good? That is, this as opposed to, say, kindness or happiness or security or peace? What makes this the greatest good, other than faith that is? I'll observe that if you go that "all of the others will arise from freedom," you'll not only have stiff competition from "all others would also arise from kindness or happiness as goals," but the strong likelihood that freedom would more likely arise from them than the other way 'round. Quite a lot of human history suggests that people with absolute freedom act in cruel and brutal ways.

And, if you like, swing back 'round to the matter of absolute individualism being impossible. Given that it is, how should we be dealing with that fact? I've heard a lot of "make it as possible as it can be," and that's all well and good, but I find that I'm most frequently let down by libertarian laissez-faire when I ask them how this system will, in practical terms, address those naughty things that no one in particular owns, but that everyone must have. I have yet to see a solid non-governmental option for ensuring clean air and water, for instance, or the supply of a sufficiently educated workforce to maintain an industrial economy. Yes, I know, it *ought* to all be a matter of individual choice - but given that we're all going to suffer the effects of choices we didn't make in those areas, what in practical terms can we do other than create a government to manage those conflicting individual rights?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It always amazes me how stupid and arrogant certain conservatives can be...oh, wait, am I generalizing? I am.

If you're going to lump together liberals and paint us all with one brush, Sev, you'd better be ready to be painted with one, too. And for the record, it seems to me of late that it's the conservatives that have been inconsistent. They scream "states rights!" until certain states start saying that homosexuals can marry--then suddenly they're "flexible" about wanting to limit state's rights. They scream "states rights" until certain states start to make marijuana legal, then suddenly they're "flexible" about wanting to limit state's rights. And they seem pretty darn flexible about the VP's powers if we're discussing "flexibility" of powers.

No liberal in the history of our country has been more "flexible" about blurring the separation of powers as the rigidly conservative Bush Administration. And don't even get me started on their "flexibility" in interpreting the constitution: the 7th Amendment ("no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process" (hm. no "person"--I think the conservatives have done that to a lot of persons of late), 8th Amendment--that's the one that says "in all criminal prosecutions the accused will enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" or the tenth regarding cruel and unusual punishments (think that would have included waterboarding?)

But before you dig yourself any deeper with these really offensive generalizations (do you read what you write? Do you edit before you post? Do you want to insult those of us who you generally get along with by calling us hypocrites for no good reason?), I suggest you read up McCullen's book on John Adams. EVEN THEN back in the days of the founding fathers they were arguing about what States rights were and what Separation meant and what rights the president should have, etc. So even the guys that wrote the damn thing disagreed on what it all meant and made changes as they were put into power. So I don't think you can sit there and say, "I know exactly how it should go!" because if they didn't you sure as hell don't. When you get a degree in constitutional law, let me know. Maybe I'll be interested in what you have to say on the subject.

Final word: and if you're going to make accusations and assertions, please use specific examples. Saying that "liberals" are all for the bill of rights but "flexible" on states rights makes no sense at all. EXACTLY what the fuck do you mean? Which liberals? And which parts of the Bill of Rights? As the lawmakers are *allowed* to add more rights, why should we go back to the original and forget any new ones? Why would that be so good and wonderful?

Give me a particular example of a particular individual being for every article, as originally written in the bill of rights--and yet not for State's rights and separation of powers. Then we will discuss the merits or failures of that individual's opinion and, irrespective of their politics which don't fucking matter, decide if their position has any merit.

Otherwise, this is all nonsense. No specific examples mean that you've nothing but vague generalizations and unsubstantiated assertions. Which is worth zilch--unless you're insulting people.

I tend to follow Occham's Razor, that is, "all else being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be true." That applies particularly to the 10th Amendment, which refutes the dubious "living document" theory.

As for the process of changing the Constitution, I have demonstrated an example of how it can be changed- the ONLY way that it can Constitutionally be changed- the formal ratification of Constitutional amendments.

We don't live under British common law, where Parliament can pass organic laws to expand its own powers. We live under a written, clearly stated supreme law of the land.

As for an example, I'll use the ACLU, which staunchly defends most civil liberties (which I must applaud as a Libertarian), but doesn't defend states' rights or Second Amendment rights, and doesn't even think to challenge the right of unconstitutional agencies like the Federal Reserve or the FCC to exist.

And I don't let the Right off the hook, either. They are guilty of only paying lip service to strict construction, and then deserting it when volatile issues like partial-birth abortion allow them to make "exceptions".

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Something that works better than Occam's Razor is this question: WHAT HAS TO BE TRUE FOR THIS SITUATION TO MAKE SENSE?

 

[Huckleman2000]

The Constitutional authority for most of the examples you cite is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. The Commerce Clause states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The Constitutional authority for most of the examples you cite is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. The Commerce Clause states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Ah, the worst offender (not you, but the fallacious interpretation of the commerce clause).

Bear in mind that this was my olive branch to those who use what I deem to be an erroneous belief in a "living document" and other theories to justify what Goldwater rightly called "programs that do violence to the Constitution".

ETA: 3113, I have read McCullough's (not McCullen) book about Adams. Hell, I own it. Adams had a distinct viewpoint. And it's certainly true that people in those days had different views on the Constitution.

However, I regard Madison's view as the most authoritative, since he wrote the 10th Amendment. I hold to the view that a loose construction was a possibility until the 10th Amendment, but not after it. Once the 10th Amendment was ratified, only new Amendments could expand the scope of Federal power.

Given that Madison vetoed what he deemed a useful internal improvements bill on the basis of Constitutional jurisdiction (or rather, lack thereof) on the part of the Federal Government, I believe that he would certainly be horrified at the "living document" theory and what it has been used to justify.

I firmly adhere to the view that Madison, as author of the Bill of Rights, knew better than anyone the meaning and intent of the 10th Amendment. And he held to the "strict constructionist" view. That's very telling to me.

Given that Adams, while a great man, was a bit too elastic with the First Amendment, too (Sedition Act, anyone), I certainly regard Madison's take on the Bill of Rights to be safer.

 

[rgraham666]

All I know is that fundamentalists, those who believe in the complete, unchanging and utter perfection of something, whether religious, economic or political, are people to be feared.

Nothing will stop them from implementing their Truth.

 

[cloudy]

So, tell us, Sev, which Amendments would you do away with?

The First, which grants freedom of speech?

The Fourth, which details unlawful search and seizure?

The Thirteenth, which abolishes slavery?

The Fifteenth, which allows people of all races to vote?

The Nineteenth, which gives women the vote?

Or would you just do away with all of them?

I've always liked you, but I call absolute bullshit on this. You don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I tend to follow Occham's Razor, that is, "all else being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be true."

You know, I see that invoked quite a lot, but I've never seen it shown to be true. When we examine even simple material reality, we learn - admittedly, with some surprise - that nothing is less likely. What would have been the simpler theory - that solids are simply solid, or that they're actually mostly space with tiny particles invisible to the naked eye constantly orbiting each other and creating the illusion of a solid mass? When you put it like that, the latter theory seems ridiculously over-worked, and yet it's the correct one.

So many other things work in the same way that I've gone right off of Occam's Razor. I don't believe that it supports itself. After all, if we really want a simple explanation for the world around us, "God willed it instantaneously to be so" is much simpler than all of this complicated evolution and geology business. The honest truth is, there are a great many very complicated things out there. The more I look into them, the more I think that Occam's Razor is really just another way of saying, "I like things to be clear and straightfoward. Therefore I shall believe that they are." It doesn't have much to do with how things actually tend to work - that tends to be a complicated and messy business. That goes double for using it to interpret human writing, which is a complex, socially driven, and ambiguous system to start with.

 

[sr71plt]

You know, I see that invoked quite a lot, but I've never seen it shown to be true. When we examine even simple material reality, we learn - admittedly, with some surprise - that nothing is less likely. What would have been the simpler theory - that solids are simply solid, or that they're actually mostly space with tiny particles invisible to the naked eye constantly orbiting each other and creating the illusion of a solid mass? When you put it like that, the latter theory seems ridiculously over-worked, and yet it's the correct one.

So many other things work in the same way that I've gone right off of Occam's Razor. I don't believe that it supports itself. After all, if we really want a simple explanation for the world around us, "God willed it instantaneously to be so" is much simpler than all of this complicated evolution and geology business. The honest truth is, there are a great many very complicated things out there. The more I look into them, the more I think that Occam's Razor is really just another way of saying, "I like things to be clear and straightfoward. Therefore I shall believe that they are." It doesn't have much to do with how things actually tend to work - that tends to be a complicated and messy business. That goes double for using it to interpret human writing, which is a complex, socially driven, and ambiguous system to start with.

It seems to work best in TV detective drama (you can only get so complex in a script for an hour's program). It certainly doesn't work too well in the sweeping social, economic, and political issues we have today. That's probably the major failing of "Joe Six Pack" stepping into the voting booth--what looks simple, really isn't. Americans, in particular, like to think they can control and manage everything. Quite obviously they can't

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Ah, the worst offender (not you, but the fallacious interpretation of the commerce clause).

And the Supreme Court's decades of rulings to the contrary, including the rulings that upheld the portion of the Civil Rights Act requiring that people be accommodated in hotels and restaurants regardless of their race, are wrong because . . .

SEVERUSMAX says so?

Thank God you're here. I could have spent my entire life thinking that those rulings were correct because they had so obviously reached the correct conclusion as a matter of simple justice.

 

[sr71plt]

And the Supreme Court's decades of rulings to the contrary, including the rulings that upheld the portion of the Civil Rights Act requiring that people be accommodated in hotels and restaurants regardless of their race, are wrong because . . .

SEVERUSMAX says so?

Thank God you're here. I could have spent my entire life thinking that those rulings were correct because they had so obviously reached the correct conclusion as a matter of simple justice.

As I posted up the line, the Constitution is still working because it is flexible and mechanisms exist to keep it current with evolving values (if lagging a little behind from time to time). The only real threat to the Constitution continuing to work well is the type of constitutional ultrastrict constructionist who (unless is conveniences her/him to otherwise) insists on keeping his/her nose buried in what the domument literally meant to the obsolete society at the time it was written. The Consitution was being bent/reinterpreted at least as early as the Louisiana Purchase. And and that's what's kept the U.S. in business all this time.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BLACKSHANGLAN

If you believe what you posted I invite you to hold a flame to your hand and try and guess the direction heat flows. Assigning cause to God or fairies is not demonstrable, whereas it is plausible and demonstrable to claim that heat energy takes the path of least resistance. Occam's Razor ISN'T pulling guesses out of your ass.

 

[amicus]

Well, let's go noodge at this, then.

Why is this the greatest good? That is, this as opposed to, say, kindness or happiness or security or peace? What makes this the greatest good, other than faith that is? I'll observe that if you go that "all of the others will arise from freedom," you'll not only have stiff competition from "all others would also arise from kindness or happiness as goals," but the strong likelihood that freedom would more likely arise from them than the other way 'round. Quite a lot of human history suggests that people with absolute freedom act in cruel and brutal ways.

And, if you like, swing back 'round to the matter of absolute individualism being impossible. Given that it is, how should we be dealing with that fact? I've heard a lot of "make it as possible as it can be," and that's all well and good, but I find that I'm most frequently let down by libertarian laissez-faire when I ask them how this system will, in practical terms, address those naughty things that no one in particular owns, but that everyone must have. I have yet to see a solid non-governmental option for ensuring clean air and water, for instance, or the supply of a sufficiently educated workforce to maintain an industrial economy. Yes, I know, it *ought* to all be a matter of individual choice - but given that we're all going to suffer the effects of choices we didn't make in those areas, what in practical terms can we do other than create a government to manage those conflicting individual rights?

~~~

I feel like I am performing a thread jack here, but that is not my intent as I sense beneath the political ramifications of our founding documents, a philosophical foundation exists and needs be discussed.....thus...my apologies if some think otherwise...

Besides that, I wish to take advantage of a rare, 'Shanglan' post, as they are almost always memorable and civil in terms of disagreement on basic issues.

Your little, 'noodge', about the 'greatest good', the definition and from whence it arrives, is a thoughtful question although from the tone, it sounds as if you have already reached a decision or a conclusion.

You know, as well as I, that all moral systems arose originally from religious tracts, from faith and belief. The definition of right and wrong, good and bad, all had their roots in religion, which I consider a precursor to philosophy as man began to attempt to comprehend his nature and his surroundings and indeed begin to define the nature of human actions.

You also know that most of the history of the world has been that of describing the conflict between the many and varied faith based interpretations of those moral and ethical questions.

In hindsight, it appears, at least to me, entirely logical that various segments of humanity, witnessing the carnage of religious based conficts, wars, that swept the civilized world, rejected the fundamentals of religion and went off searching for a better system of determining the rightness or wrongness of human actions.

And yes, I know, it is virtually impossible to present a thumbnail sketch of all this, but bear with me if you will as I posit that as early as Plato, the thinkers began looking for an alternative to divine law and arrived at things basically derived from the 'golden mean', essentially the first buds of socialism.

These battles between divine rule and the greater good, still rage around the globe, but I assert that a new player has entered the stage and has asserted that neither god nor socialism provides a rational, logical, science based definition of the efficacy of human actions.

We brave new souls, attempting to define that which is good and evil, have looked to the nature of man for the answers: what are we, how can we best exist together?

Long before the Declaration of Independence, many thinkers were mulling the concept of individual life and the concept of values, hence, ethics and morals.

Since the literature is available to all, I will not even begin an attempt to answer the question, rather leave you with your own journey, should you care to undertake it.

Rejecting god, divine law, as a source of human morality, rejecting the concept of sacrificing the individual to the 'greater good' of communal existence, where does one begin to contemplate the roots and foundations of a rational, logical, ethical and moral foundation for humanity?

I suggest that it is the axiom, the truism, the self evident acknowledgement that all values begin with the life of a single human individual.

To my cynical worldly associates here on the forum, yes, I know another ice age may bring about extinction of man, that or a hundred other doomsday scenario's that, to some, portray the inconsequential existence of our species and thus, any stray thoughts about immortality that we may have.

But within the span of my life, yes, my life, and your life, Shang, et al, there is a beginning and an end, as there is to all things and I leave you with the rhetorical inquiry, should it not be lived for our own enjoyment?

That of rational self interest?

(Have an appt with a cataract surgeon in a few hours, so not really concentrating on a continuing exchange here, so....that is the best I can offer at the moment.)

Regards...

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Lincoln said it best in the 7th debate with Stephen Douglas.

He called it the oldest social proposition and source of social conflict: You toil and sweat for your daily bread AND I GET TO EAT IT. Parasites relentlessly struggle to enslave the producers. The Founders organized our government to resist the enslavement endeavors, but they failed to appreciate that most people are hot for a yoke and shackles.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Cheers, Amicus, for the interesting post, and I hope that the surgery goes well. I'll just throw this out in case you happen to wander back to the thread.

Oddly enough, you and I almost entirely agree on the evolution of man's apprehension of morality. I tend to see to nuances slightly differently; I don't think it's necessary to remove religion entirely, but I do think you entirely right in citing personal inquiry and responsibility for one's morals and actions as a key advancement.

I think that the greatest gift the Reformation brought us was the idea that the church had an obligation not merely to say what was right, but show why it was right, thus introducing even into theology the demands of secular philosophy in seeking a rigorous, thoughtful, and personally comprehensible moral structure. The idea that every person ought to be inquiring, puzzling, seeking and demanding answers was, I think, a huge step forward that laid the ground for the questioning of all sorts of concepts previously unquestioned.

All of that works very well, but is the focus on the individual the only thing wanting? I think that that is indeed (as you note) where I tend inherently to disagree, although I'm always open to well-reasoned argument to the contrary. I certainly think that individual rights and resposibilities are highly important; it's on that question of whether they are the only, the most, or the most fundamentally important that I doubt. I think I tend to think that there isn't a single one virtue from which all others spring; I think it's a balance of virtues. But if I did have to pick a single one, I think I would be more likely to choose kindness or compassion than individualism. I think the latter more likely to arise from the former than the other way 'round.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It seems to work best in TV detective drama (you can only get so complex in a script for an hour's program). It certainly doesn't work too well in the sweeping social, economic, and political issues we have today. That's probably the major failing of "Joe Six Pack" stepping into the voting booth--what looks simple, really isn't. Americans, in particular, like to think they can control and manage everything. Quite obviously they can't

Yes. That's something I find frustrating from every part of the political spectrum, regardless of the source or the particulars - the promise that if we just focus on a highly pure and extreme version of one particular thing, we can solve all of the ills of the world. It doesn't much matter to me whether it's private investment, religion in public life, a flat tax or communism; when someone brightly points out that all of our complex social and economic problems have one simple solution, I wince and turn the page.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So, tell us, Sev, which Amendments would you do away with?

The First, which grants freedom of speech?

The Fourth, which details unlawful search and seizure?

The Thirteenth, which abolishes slavery?

The Fifteenth, which allows people of all races to vote?

The Nineteenth, which gives women the vote?

Or would you just do away with all of them?

I've always liked you, but I call absolute bullshit on this. You don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

As I've said before, amendments are legit. Reinterpretation is not. You clearly don't grasp what strict construction is, if you believe that it is about repealing amendments to the Constitution (okay, maybe repealing the 16th would be nice, as income taxes are just an excuse to impose Karl Marx's agenda, but technically the 16th is part of the Constitution as well as the others).

In fact, it is an Amendment which abolished any validity for loose construction- the 10th Amendment. Before that, a vague wording allowed for various interpretations, all equally valid. After it, however, only strict construction is legitimate.

Madison understood this, which is why he argued that in order to have internal improvements and other useful things, the Constitution needed to be formally amended. Why did he understand this: because he WROTE the 10th Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

If given a choice between Madison and the "living document" crowd, I choose Madison. I certainly trust his judgment over that of the Supreme Court and its convenient misinterpretation to expand the role of government.

Perhaps Madison at this point regretted making the 10th Amendment's language so restrictive, but he recognized that it was too late and now the Constitution has to be amended to allow certain things, which is not what was the case before the 10th was ratified.

In other words, it's not because of the language of the original 1787 Constitution itself, but because of the 10th Amendment, that I regard loose construction as being an invalid option.

And so, contrary to those who think that I consider it perfect (or utterly flawed on the other extreme), I regarded the Constitution as malleable in one way: through formally ratified Amendments. How is that "inflexible", since it is the method through which the Constitution was intended to be modified?

Cloudy makes a key mistake here, as do the other things, in not distinguishing between my disapproval of a broad interpretation (mainly on strict legal grounds more than anything else) and the issue of Amendments, some of which I may dislike (though not the ones she listed), but all of which I deem equally valid in the eyes of the law.

No, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer. Thank God for that. They only create confusion, since they have so much to unlearn, junk food fed them by their law professors. The 10th Amendment rarely seems to get much mention, since it confronts them with an inconvenient fact- Congress is limited by the 10th Amendment to what powers it has been granted in the 1787 Constitution itself. Well, that and some powers of enforcement granted in subsequent Amendments.

There are times when I was wish that I was on the Supreme Court, to provide a voice of reason, of strict observance to the law. Not that liberals or faux conservatives would find much comfort in my votes there (probably dissents most of the time) for their political agendas.

I don't care if my views are popular. I care if they are right. And I believe that they are.

I like to think of myself as the Constitutional version of a gadfly on the subject of states' rights and Federal jurisdiction.

The other issue, of course, is separation of powers, but that's an even more egregious breach of the Constitution, in terms of unelected Federal commissions passing laws through regulations and imposing fines on their victims.

 

[rgraham666]

Myself? I don't care about being right.

I care about being good. These two things aren't the same.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I respect your views, Rob.

But bear in mind that this thread was started to offer a middle ground, an olive branch. Instead of accepting it, most people have attacked my political philosophy. I find THAT disturbing, to be blunt.

I tried to offer a way to the Federal Government out of legal quicksand, onto Constitutional terra firma. That my overtures were rebuffed is quite telling.

Perhaps it is because they fear that the amendment process involves too much scrutiny, whereas little is required to "reinterpret" the Constitution.

Or perhaps they fear an admission of even the possibility that the laws used to punish people in the name of social justice might not be laws at all.

Or it could be that they fear admitting the Supreme Court is not the final authority on the Constitution, as is popularly (and erroneously) thought?

I do know that the Constitutional changes which have most benefited this nation, such as abolition of slavery, expansion of the franchise, abolition of the poll tax, and clarification of the Presidential succession, have all been subject to the greater scrutiny of the formal Amendment ratification process.

The more dubious and controversial changes have been done with less scrutiny, perhaps due to fear that they might not pass it. Hence the convenience of the "living document" theory so popular with Justice Breyer, Senator Obama, and other fellows of that sort.

It's a bit jarring to me that people would rather refuse to admit a possible fallacy than consider a means to make everything legally (and Constitutionally) watertight.

So much for my olive branch. I withdraw it and will continue to insist that for most social reforms to be Constitutional, they will have to be done at the state or local level, as Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg have done. It's ironic that a moderate Republican and a liberal independent have proven that the states and localities don't need DC after all to legislate reforms that they find useful.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, and in my view, liberty and justice for all are the greatest good. There I must respectfully dissent from Shang's view of this matter. A kind and caring master is still a master, and a well-treated slave is still a slave. And that is unacceptable to me (well, outside a BDSM context, that is).

There's a reason I have little use for most jurists these days, just as I feel about politicians and lawyers.

I do know that I'm voting Libertarian and hoping that one day some sanity might return to government, including the courts. A Libertarian-run Supreme Court would be nice, but I don't see that happening soon.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I will add that in one area I do agree with liberals. Bankruptcy law, which IS in the Federal sphere, is too heavily weighted toward creditors these days, thanks to legislation passed in the formerly GOP-led Congress. A return to sanity in this matter would veer a bit leftward.

Whatever qualms I have about Obama and his leftist ideology, perhaps he can do some good in that area, if elected.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Your views are intellectually honest and consistent, to be sure, but the conclusion to which they lead - the nullification of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other things - is abhorrent. As long as their are valid arguments on the other side - arguments about which reasonable people may continue to disagree - I will stay over there. Waiting for each state to undertake civil rights reform on its own would have had tragic consequences.

 

[rgraham666]

Sev, I did not see your original post as offering middle ground.

Instead it was saying, "There is only the Constitution as The Framers imagined it and nothing but. This is how it worked. These are the evil things that happened to it. We must restore The Truth and The Good."

What is currently wrong with the United States has nothing to do with the Constitution and every thing to do with human character. More specifically that part of the American character best summarized as 'vicious individualism'. That sort of thing could work when the U.S. was an agrarian society on the verge of conquering and exploiting the lands regarded as 'virgin' at the time.

Now? Well, as I've said before it's Frontier America vs. Enlightenment America. And there is no frontier anymore.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Sev, I did not see your original post as offering middle ground.

Instead it was saying, "There is only the Constitution as The Framers imagined it and nothing but. This is how it worked. These are the evil things that happened to it. We must restore The Truth and The Good."

What is currently wrong with the United States has nothing to do with the Constitution and every thing to do with human character. More specifically that part of the American character best summarized as 'vicious individualism'. That sort of thing could work when the U.S. was an agrarian society on the verge of conquering and exploiting the lands regarded as 'virgin' at the time.

Now? Well, as I've said before it's Frontier America vs. Enlightenment America. And there is no frontier anymore.

I disagree with your assessment, though respectfully.

The middle ground, however, was in offering a way for there to be undeniable legitimacy for those programs that may have become a fait accomplis (fact accomplished), but are still unconstitutional.

The problem for me is not the Constitution but the illusion that it is a living document that anyone (including a prospective tyrant, not that I consider anyone here that) could construe as he or she pleases. The Constitution is, as my professor put it, a "law to govern the governors".

Liberals often ask who will stop the excess of the market, well who will stop the excesses of government. Who will regulate the regulators, if not the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land?

Just my take on it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If you ever get an opportunity to be a real insider you discover that there are rules for schlubs and rules for the elites. With this reality in mind, the Constitution becomes a living fiction....like the Bible. The 9 old fucks on the Supreme Court arent gonna save you or change shit.