It’s not just the Constitution that is a “living document,” as Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer proved yesterday when discussing the Second Amendment. Breyer argued that James Madison only included the right to bear arms reluctantly, and only because the states wouldn’t sign the Constitution for fear of creating an overmighty central government. That’s why he voted against the majority in theHeller decision that overturned the federal handgun ban in Washington DC:
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court’s decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case “D.C. v. Heller.”
Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.
Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”
Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.
“If you’re interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story,” Breyer said. “If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us.”
Read the rest at Hot Air
Have you ever started a job where on day one you march into your boss's office and demand twice as much pay as the offer letter you signed stipulates? You're boss would be more befuddled than Biden after a conversation about long division. You inform your new boss that your ONLY CONCERN was to GET THE JOB so you agreed to anything that could get you over that goal line, and now it's time to take what you really want.
Take a poll and ask any random person if they would want twice as much pay as they're already getting for their job, you'll get a "yes" faster than a TSA interrorgation that asks Barney Frank if he's packin' heat (no guns involved, the officer is just really cute and he misunderstood the question).
Write down the results of your respondents, (or you can save yourself the time and just write 100% in the "yes" column), time stamp it, and now history is officially on your side.
Under which history of what universe is it true that anything in the constitution, a document Breyer has sworn to uphold, can be ignored due to the perceived motivation for its creation?
No offense to the Palinistas, but if people turned off Dancing with the Stars for even five minutes so they can be briefed on the fact that the "progressives" who sit on the Supreme Court today should be outfitted for masks resembling the pigs from Orwell's Animal Farm Democrats would never again see the White House on the sole basis of nominating justices to the Supreme Court.
This is real constitution shredding going on right in front of our faces, not like the unsubstantiated Air America hyperbole conservatives have to put up with from Breyer's ilk.
If the opinions of historians are so important to Breyer then maybe he should consult the ones who actually rely on history. Or better yet take the damn middle man out of it. Hot Air completely vaporizes Breyer's rationale using a devastatingly revelatory quote from Madison himself, so make sure check out the post (the link is in the above blockquote).Add a comment
Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.
Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or under the General Welfare Clause.
"It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue -- it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance," wrote Hudson, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush.
"Every application of Commerce Clause power found to be constitutionally sound by the Supreme Court involved some form of action, transaction or deed placed in motion by an individual or legal entity. The constitutional viability of the minimum essential coverage provision in this case turns on whether or not a person's decision to refuse to purchase health care insurance is such an activity," he wrote.
Hudson's eagerly awaited decision invalidates the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a federal fine. Hudson's decision is the first striking down part of the controversial legislation.
The Obama administration is likely to appeal Monday's ruling to the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. It is widely expected that no matter the outcome before that court, the case will ultimately go before the Supreme Court, as even Hudson acknowledged.
Constitution: I told you so dude
: Shut up, nobody asked you.
Constitution: Exactly! Thats your problem dude. You swore to uphold me, and the only direction you hold me is down dude!
: Stop calling me dude, I am the President of the United States.
Constitution: You look like just a dude to me.
: I hope Bush got this much disrespect.
Constitution: He didn't dude...W is my homeboy.
: What the "H-E-double hockey sticks-O where's my virgins"?!? He was the poster boy of not "upholding" the constitution.
Constitution: That's pretty true dude...he was definitely more of a cuddler.
I know this is by no means over, but today is a good day.Add a comment
No wonder they can't get tough on national security. This guy was the Dems '04 runner-up for president!!! He seriously could've been his own first lady...
Say what you might about Obama, but at least...
......um...that was definitely taken out of context, so as I was saying...
...well, at least he.....
....girlie?Add a comment
A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.
Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.
"This could be a real train wreck for school districts," Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. "The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level."
The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier. The legislation would apply to all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.
Read the rest here
Its a good thing being a moral busybody is calorie-free. Whats next?
Add a comment
Aids say Obama left today's press conference after Bill Clinton took over because Clinton refused to wear a skirt for the president to hide behind.
A binocular clad Biden said to not be upset that Clinton got to be Obama's press conference understudy since the president gave him the "important" job of being "lookout."
Following Bernie Sanders's 8-hour speech against the tax cut compromise Obama gets a stern warning to "never ever EVER" (sic) try the same thing from his teleprompters.
Record low temperatures in Cancun during global warming summit said to be mother nature playing a of game "hot and cold" with environmentalists' credibility.Add a comment
I recently broke a rule I made for myself to not get into fights with liberals on Twitter. Engaging in Twitter fights reminds me too much of what it must've been like to be a supporter of Obama in 2008:
It's too hard to think in complete sentences, when it's over you have this overwhelming feeling of guilt and regret and a longing to have that time back, and actual literacy is optional.
One of the canards I had to deal with in my debate with them was this notion that the tax cuts "didn't work" and therefore it was "time to end them." These Nobel winning economists in waiting never actually offered anything other than that as a reason the GOP was wrong to make the extensions permanent.
We are allegedly NOT in recession, and yet unemployment remains dangerously close to double digits. At this point, making the tax cuts permanent wont serve to stimulate the economy. It will serve to not cause a double dip recession. Job creation can't take place when everyone knows, or even anticipates having more of their money taken away. It's SO simple.
The left believes it simply isn't true. In my Twitter fight they said I was wrong without a shred of evidence or even an attempt at logic to refute common sense.
All I could do was continue asking point blank how an economy can create jobs when the wherewithal to grow demand is cut off at the knees. This is the "progressive" intellect my stupid question was eventually deflected with...
@SteelersGurlie to job creation..grants and loans to small business.
This was my response....
@TheLookingSpoon I see TAKE their money and then LOAN it back to them for jobs, LOL
This is what we're up against!
The GOP needs to explain itself to the nation like they're talking to a bunch of economic illiterates, because that's what they are (especially the "progressives"). People think the tax cuts didn't, or don't work, and they need to be set straight like Barney Frank at a slimy gay goblin party.
Basically the recession at the beginning of President Bush's term in office was like a little rain storm. The government gave you an umbrella (that was yours to begin with) to "borrow" so you can still go out and do all the things you weren't going to do in the rain but for the umbrella.
The sun comes out and you don't need the umbrella anymore, but you don't have to return it for a few more years so you hang on to it in case it rains again.
After a few years of sunny weather you notice a storm is coming, and this time its really bad. Like its raining cats and sub-prime mortgages bad! The umbrella is useless because its starting to flood. So all you can do now is accept that you're going to be soaked, turn the umbrella over, and hop in 'cuz its now a boat thats going to keep you afloat until the flood waters subside.
You're not happy, but you're keeping yourself afloat. All of a sudden some jackass in a helicopter (she lost her private jet in a different kind of flood) comes along and tells your time to "own" the umbrella is up and to fork it over. That you'll drown without it is not her problem because her face is a flotation device.
There will be other moments where compromise is a necessary evil, this is not one of those times. Congress needs to know that even with a paltry two year reprieve we can't give up the umbrella when murky waters remain beneath us.
I know there are those out there who think extending the tax cuts will create a whole new storm. They're partly right, only because there's a difference between the real raindrops of recession and the class-envy fueled tears of crybaby know-nothing "progressives" that also require an umbrella for protection.Add a comment
I first saw this months ago, it makes me laugh EVERY time!
h/t iOwnTheWorldAdd a comment