Actually, proposing amendments is not showing contempt for the Constitution… Merely ignoring them (for instance, entangling church and state) is showing contempt…
Trinopus
I really don’t see it the same way as the OP. I mean, in singling out Republicans. I would imagine, as was pointed out by some posts above, that both sides of the aisles, and inbetween, get caught trying to subvert the Constitution. You say, “Constitution,” but I really think you mean, “Law Of The Land.” Precarious difference there. I’ve heard about just as many ways the Democrats have tried the same thing.
That’s the beauty of the whole thing. Our three branches more or less keep the others in check. And the Constitution keeps everyone in check.
Your examples above are a good example of these contentions. You posted the Anti-Abortion Bill. The article says that this was adopted in 1980. In my view, this was to combat the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision promoting choice in 1976(?) But please correct me if I need to be.
[uncitable blanket statement]
I think conservatives have a tendency to read the constitution literally. Liberals tend to interpret things “in the spirit of” the framer’s intent. (The same may be said of their approaches to the Bible)
If there is any accuracy to this overt generalization, it would account for why conservatives prefer to have their hot button issues set into stone and codified in such a way as to leave as little wiggle room as possible for “creative” interpretations.
[/uncitable blanket statement]
Liberals don’t need to amend the Constitution. That’s what liberal judges are for. In other words, Roe v. Wade had much the same effect on the law of the land as a Constitutional amendment, except there was no need to convince the states to ratify it.
Which makes Fear Itself’s point -
meaningless. It is exactly because the Supreme Court has rarely overturned gun legislation that Democrats do not need to repeal the Second Amendment. All that is needed is to install judges who are willing to interpret its language as allowing exactly what it forbids.
And therefore Fear Itself’s last point was equally mistaken.
The assertion that conservatives are making an assault on the Constitution by following the amendment process as outlined in the Constitution, whereas liberals who attempt to overrule it by judicial fiat, are being respectful, is ridiculous.
Regards,
Shodan
The imagining of a hostile horde of liberal judges that our friend has just referred to is part of the non-fact-based oppressed-minority attitude that the RW cultivates.
The 9th circuit coort of appeals is just an imaginary monster, then?
Shodan’s point is absolutely correct. Why change the constitution when it’s so much easier to ignore it outright (Campaign Finance Reform) or interpret it to say something that it doesn’t (Roe vs Wade).
Offering amendments to the Constitution does not indicate a low opinion of the thing. A person could think it’s just peachy but wants it to be even better. I detect no contempt for the Constitution here. Pity.
I agree.
I think it’s OK to poke fun at people who champion amendments which have no chance of being passed… we all know they are cowards trying to get votes for free.
But even these people are implying that the Constitution should be considered the final authority. I think it’s much worse when a liberal activist judge ignores what’s already in the Constitution… the recent ruling on CFR being a prime example of this.
-k
I doubt you do agree with me, Kempis. I’m genuinely sorry there isn’t more contempt for our undemocratic Constitution. I feel that’s the reasonable response to it. Nor do I think there are any liberal justices left on the court. Just some moderates and soft-right conservatives like O’Connor to stand against the hard right. I am against activist judges though. Of any political stripe.
If the judge is liberal, then he’s an “activist.”
If the judge is conservative, then he’s merely “well-qualified.”
–From The Little Republican’s Dictionary
As a base I wonder if you all understand the elementary controlling mechanisms of a Constitution? First of all, it is a given that the rules of a governing document necessitates an agreement between an interreacting, and usually politically bound people who agree to controlling words that have a clear, easily understood meaning that is acccepted by the majority as gospel. No more, no less.
And semantics being what they are, the functional reality of shared common beliefs are more important to the semantic continuance than any strained reconstruction that can be made by interlopers.
And we ourselves, by our posted aliennation, have become the interlopers.
Awright 2sense, I gotta ask: what exactly are your objections to this “undemocratic constitution”? I already know you know a lot about the subject, so I’d be intrigued to hear what you have to say.
He feels America is strapped to a prison bed, tortured by shocks from the Electrical College.
Whistle, flag, stating opinion as fact, on Debaser. Five yard penalty, repeat the post.
Conservatives want to add amendments to trump the SCOTUS which conservatives think intemperate the constitution to further their own agenda. But
Why do conservatives want to add new amendments to the Constitution if they think that “liberal” justices would just ignore those new admendments as they think has been done in the case of the 2nd amendment and campaign finance reform?
like John Galt?
They think that the hot-button amendments don’t have a chance of passing, so it doesn’t matter anyways.
Trouble would come if they do, like how the conservatives thought the the CFR’s “no political advertising 60 days before the election” would be shot down as obviously against the first amendment. 
That’s the chance you take.
-k
Or Thomas Eagleton.
This sounds good at first, until you consider the conservative favorite, the 2nd, which they are extremely creative about. They hate it when others insist that the 2nd be interpreted exactly as it is written.
To anyone with a basic grasp of English grammar, the 2nd amendment, if read literally, creates an individual right.
The substance of the amendment is not affected by its exhortative opening clause, any more than the substantive provisions of the constitution are affected by the Preamble. It doesn’t take “extreme creativity” to reach that conclusion.
Thought experiment: if the first amendment dealt only with free speech, and read “Political discourse being necessary to a free state, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” do you think Congress could constitutionally restrict speech that did not relate to criticism or praise of the government?