Very clear constitutional commands that, for example, [...] “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,”

Of course, the Constitution also clearly states that that right exists for the sake of a “well-regulated militia.” Which sure seems to say that the government is constitutionally allowed to regulate firearms. “Well-regulated” doesn’t mean “you can have all the damn guns you want.”

Of course we could go further into the fact that the entire reason the Second Amendment exists is so that we wouldn’t need a standing army, and now we have a standing army, rendering the Second Amendment moot. But perhaps that’s preferable to allowing everyone to keep an Abrams tank in their garage, just in case.

“Of course, it doesn’t, because the Constitution isn’t a legal code. It’s an outline applied to the world as it exists, within the context of society as it evolves.”

In the world of Scalia and his fellow travelers, the Constitution is an outline meant for the world of 230-some years ago, and the context within which it is applied has to do with a society that hasn’t existed in centuries.  Which somehow makes it perfect to use in the modern world of trains, planes, automobiles, telephones, radio, TV, the Internet, the germ-theory of disease, the exploration of space, the harnessing of the atom, and String Theory.  Just ask ‘em…

I think McCarthy’s stated views in this previous post on the 1st Amendment make this whole thing even more puzzling:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254224/does-first-amendment-mean-what-it-says-regarding-speech-andrew-c-mccarthy

This makes sense, because about the time we’re seventeen is when we realize that, while saying “penis” at competitively escalating volumes is hilarious, it’s not really an appropriate thing to say during class and we deserve to be punished for it. While giggling, obviously.

Wow, I thought the Penis Game was only something regional to my area, as I’d never heard anyone else mention it aside from people who grew up nearby (SW MO).

I remember it fondly, because I always won on the first turn. It got me scolded in many a classroom. And restaurant. And household.

I clicked through, saw the byline, and imagined the article as delivered by Blaine in “Pretty in Pink”. What a douche!

Constitutional absolutism of the sort that results in a “right of conscience” to be free of laws you find offensive only works so long as you assume the Constitution was meant to protect you and only you, and that there was a mysterious Eleventh Amendment lost from the original Bill of Rights that tells everyone else to kiss your hairy ass.

Uh, in other words, it only works as long as you’re a conservative.

P.S.: Because they’re the Real Americans, and they get to do what they want in THEIR country, and if the rest of us want to stay we have to deal with them.

I want to join a religion that has human sacrifice in it, and then ask McCarthy to hold still while I exercise my religious freedom.

It makes as much sense as the Catholic bishops overreaching to attempt to block every woman’s access to birth control because it hurts their fee-fees.

There is an interesting book rescently out “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice” by William J. Stuntz. I haven’t read it, but from the reviews I have, it makes the argument that the American justice system is far too protective of procedure and not enough of substantive rights. He compares the Bill of rights to the French’s rights of man, a contemporary document, which limits what can be crimilised in favour of liberty. It brings in an element of common sense, under these rights you could argue that although you broke the criminal law (say by smoking a joint) locking you up would violate your right to liberty, as you had not violated the rights of others. More here.

It brings in an element of common sense, under these rights you could argue that although you broke the criminal law (say by smoking a joint) locking you up would violate your right to liberty, as you had not violated the rights of others.

I like it. The American sense of justice is more about the patriarchal, moralistic aspect of law. Conservatives essentially want Uncle Sam to say “You live under my roof, you live by my rules,” and this becomes a self-reinforcing statement wherein breaking the rules is in itself worse than any harm or damage you may have caused in doing so, because you challenged Uncle Sam’s manly authority. Whether or not the rules make sense is pretty much beside the point - “because I said so” is enough.

That is, until such rules encroach on the rights of rich white dudes to make lots and lots of money and funnel it into overseas accounts.

Well, even that would be okay if they were the wrong rich white (or whitish) dudes.

@4 I thought so too, and I’m from Michigan… come to find they know it here in the Northeast. Some things just spread, like that rumor that Zack Morris died when I was a kid.

Of course, the Constitution also clearly states that that right exists for the sake of a “well-regulated militia.”

Actually you have the meaning backwards.  In order for the militia to exist the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Basic gun laws such as keeping it out of the hands of known offenders legally is a justifiable use but otherwise most gun laws violate the basic premise of the rule.  Whether a well-regulated militia is required in the modern era as we have both federal troops and national guards is up for debate but the rules as stated leave no lea-way for the argument against them.  To make a perfect example: Milk being necessary to a great cookie dunk, the right to own milk shall not be infringed.  It doesn’t denote that cookie dunking is the right’s single reason for existence, it is merely justification to the already existing right. 

That being said though the constitution is extremely flexible and tends to mean whatever the current generation bends it to.  Corporate person hood was designed over the right to not pay taxes on a picket fence.  The idea that it is inflexible is a strategic move on a politicians part to defend their stance with a value judgment move rather than try to justify it logically.

# 13

“Milk being necessary to a great cookie dunk, the right to own milk shall not be infringed. ”

In addition, because of the Commerce Clause, you will be required to purchase one box or bag of cookies per week, because it has been determined that not purchasing cookies is an act of commerce.

Sorry, but the power to tax is trivially the power to require the purchase of.  Are you really saying that you’d be totally down with Obama’s ACA if people were taxed, then given vouchers for insurance?  Of course not.

In addition, because of the Commerce Clause, you will be required to purchase one box or bag of cookies per week, because it has been determined that not purchasing cookies is an act of commerce.

To be fair the interstate commerce clause in the use of the ACA makes sense because our lack of medical coverage on everybody and preventative maintenance on said people actually hinders our economy.  Not to mention the inhumane attitude that it breeds.  I was pointing out that we’re really arguing a sense of political tactics rather than true ideology.  The right-wing has managed to paint the argument around the idea of the past suiting their identity.

I’m not entirely sure what sharia law is, except that the Muslims in my apartment complex have nice curtains, so I assume that’s part of it.

i think this is the single most intelligent statement i have ever seen regarding the concept of sharia law being practiced in the united states.

So he’s using the Constitution against Affirmative Action.  IMHO, Affirmative Action was created to level the playing field and create “equal protection under the law.”

#16

That’s the point.  The lack of “x” for some, or all, results in an effect on Commerce. Result, unlimited power by Congress, only slightly hindered by some parts of the Constitution. The best back door in the document.

It’s not a “back door.”  The Constitution was explicitly designed to create a Federal government powerful enough to override the states.  The fact that we as Americans chose to implement a weaker version until the Civil War doesn’t mean that the powers weren’t always there.  It means that we chose not to use them.

#20

So it seems that you agree that with very few exceptions, explicitly spelled out in a few ammendments, that Congress has virtually unlimited power. The oft brought up “broccoli purchase requirement” is easily within the ability of Congress. One of the early cases where the farmer was prohibited from growing too much wheat for his family because he “might” sell it in the market and impact prices, doesn’t give anyone heartburn?

@20

To be fair it was designed to eventually have a strong Federal government.  Advancements in technology and a Civil War forced it to move quickly.  We’ve gone in bursts something like this.  Jackson, Civil War, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Reagan-Present.  Each shift moves us closer to a stronger central government which was the whole point but it went in phases.

So it seems that you agree that with very few exceptions, explicitly spelled out in a few ammendments, that Congress has virtually unlimited power.

No, he seems to agree that Congress has the power to ensure that all Americans, regardless of whether or not they live in an ass-backwards state run by inbred cretins, enjoy the equal protection of the law.

For all his fealty to the Constitution, McCarthy doesn’t seem to have much use for Article III. He makes it sound like the federal judiciary is some kind of alien organism that Barack Obama grafted onto our Constitutional framework. If you’re going to insist that the Constitution has all of these very clear commands (at least he doesn’t call them Commandments), you should be prepared to explain why it even bothers to create a judicial branch.

”...he seems to agree that Congress has the power to ensure that all Americans, regardless of whether or not they live in an ass-backwards state run by inbred cretins, enjoy the equal protection of the law.”

...and that’s the problem right there: Inbred cretins living in ass-backwards states.  Where the hell are those infamous FEMA camps when you need them?...

I’m not 100% sure if you’re criticizing me or not (it’s cool if you are, I’m just genuinely not sure), so let me just clarify that I don’t think all of my fellow Georgians are dumbfucks. But it’s hard to deny our tendency to vote for dumbfucks.

Tri, I’m just making fun… *smile*...

“In 1941 the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. In 1942, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which sought to stabilize wide fluctuations in the market price for wheat by stabilizing supply through quotas. “

You are a farmer (Wickard) who grows wheat. You have a 20 acre farm. You want to plant 10 acres to sell, and 1 acre for your family. The government (Filburn) says no, you can only plant 10 acres, because if you sell 11 acres, you will depress market prices.

Why not say you can only sell 10 acres.

Of course, with today’s Critical Area Ordinances, you’ll be lucky to be allowed to plant anything because the local Friends of Gaia say you have 250 Square feet of wetlands on the SW corner of your 20 acres.

Critical Area ordinances do not generally apply to dry land wheat farms, nor much to irrigated wheat farms.  irregated wheat farms tend to only have wetlands in them in the lowest spot where any extra irrigation happens to collect.

helen: Don’t let facts get in the way of faiimuden’s BIG GUBBAMINT scaremongering.

#30

Critical Area Ordinances apply to whatever the state/country DOE’s happen to decide is critical.
Wetlands, streams, animal habitats, geologically unstable areas, flood zones, and almost anything else they want. The typical ordinance declares some area is critical, using locally interpreted BAS (Best Available Science) and adds big buffer zones around them all. It then becomes the responsibility of a citizen that wants to use their land to prove the designation wrong.

But don’t worry, there is no shortage of Big Government to devise and expand these rules. And urban areas need never fear them, because no area in them is critical.

How can you argue, though, that that’s not regulating interstate commerce, which Congress can pretty explicitly do?

The power to buy and sell, combined with the power to regulate buying and selling? Yeah, that adds up to quite a bit of power.

Chet:
Regulating buying and selling is a huge amount of power, yes.  Going further and regulating production and consumption is what Wickard allowed.  This extra power, while clearly intimately related to commerce, is also distinguishable from commerce as usually understtod.  And it’s a lot closer to allowing all government compulsion not elsewhere ruled out in the Constitution.

Yeah, that’s pretty obviously the issue—“If it’s bad (to me), it must be unconstitutional.”  Libertarians are not deep thinkers, so you can see where two categories of “bad,” (personal dislike, and not constitutional) are conflated.

Seeing as there are stillissues trying to get wheat farmers to always plow along the contours, I don’t see big government rally taking them over,especially not as big Ag already has.

But don’t worry, there is no shortage of Big Government to devise and expand these rules. And urban areas need never fear them, because no area in them is critical.

Wrong, at least in the state of Washington:

All cities and counties in Washington are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.060). The GMA was amended in 1995 to require counties and cities to include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas (RCW 36.70A.172). All jurisdictions are required to review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas ordinances according to an update schedule. MRSC’s page on GMA Plan/Development Regulations Updates provides additional information on the schedule and required updates.

Planning goal 8 of the WA GMA includes:

Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses.

or, you know, keeping wheat farms as wheat farms rather than allowing some ass to build a housing development and fill it with idiots who apply lawn chemicals upstream of runoff, complain of the smell (for the smaller farmers who spread manure and/or have mixed farms that include livestock), etc.