To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Excuse me, but the Founding Fathers had NO clue the length and breadth of the amount, depth and scope of Congressional lawmaking that winds up having to be interpreted.

I think it’s assinine to blame judges for having to intrepret the literally thousands and thousands of moronic laws adopted by Congress over the last 228 years … for their constitutionality and applicability. That’s not the judiciary’s fault, but Congress’s fault (i.e. OUR fault!).

Is there legislating from the bench? Of course, but not nearly to the degree you would imagine. In fact, most court cases go unnoticed because the issues involved are the equivalent of dealing with barking dogs and trash collection. BORING! It’s only a few high profile issues that draw the attention, and the Founding Fathers had NO say on abortion, homosexuality, etc.

I think that the rock throwing at the judiciary needs to stop until we get Congress’s law printing machine under control first.

You aren’t seriously going to suggest that the Alien & Sedition acts (1798) weren’t a violation of the text of the 1st amendment, are you? Irrespective of that, what provision in Article I gave the Congress to pass them? Moreover, what provision in Article I gave the Congress to engage in the Louisiana Purchase?

The point should be obvious: the purported Founding Fathers did not adhere to the text of the Constitution.

Or, most likely, understood it themselves.

* W * R * O * N * G * !!!!

The Constitution is a compact among OURSELVES–among We, the Living.

Furthermore the Founding Fathers were part of “We, the People.”

To say it is a “contract between the FFs” is to stifle the Constitution. One of its glories is its flexibility. That such a document has stood for over two centuries with relatively few amendments (10 added at once upon its adoption, 2 cancelling each other), only two of these amendments revoking stipulations of the original (abolishing slavery and imposing an income tax) is proof of this adaptability.

If the age of a nation is determined by its political institutions and governmental structure, only Great Britain is older than the USA.

Now, tell me, what in the federal constitution gave the Congress the power to pass the Alien & Sedition acts. Or the power to engage in the Louisiana purchase. Cite me chapter & verse.

I can cite you chapter & verse of judicial review (see Federalist Paper #78). Cite me the powers in the A&S acts and the Louisiana Purchase. You won’t be able to.

The originals largely ignored original intent.

I felt a beeeze from THAT waffling.

When it comes to Harriet, Don’t Mess With Texas!

This is too much fun.

Now, go find where it is laid out as specifically that people have the right to murder another person because that person interrupts their social life or came about as a consequence of their informed and consented-to actions. Better yet, go read the part of the Constitution that talks about seizure of property and see what you think it says about confiscating private property for the sole purpose of increasing local tax revenue.

“Strict constructionist”, in the eyes of the left, apparently means anyone who READS the Constitution before ruling on it.

raj and patrick and markp (#4, 10, and #25), don’t expect answers to your points here, because they certainly point out a broad hypocrisy here that really can’t be argued by the usual suspects/rightist apologists (sean hannity? come on bruce, do your own homework rather than paying attention to loudmouth intellectual half-pints). to that you can add the meme that roberts religion should not be a matter, but today the far right is selling harriet miers BECAUSE of her religion.

the ‘living’ constitution… ‘judicial activism’… create whatever bogeyman you want.

the truth is that it is simply the political hacks and ideologues (today it’s on the right) who are covering up the increasingly clear and unvarnished truth about their agenda: the real definition of these laws are only “laws we don’t like”. you need look no further than the recent SCOTUS decision overruling state wine delivery rules, championed (and in my opinion correctly) by the right. yeah, it’s all about state’s rights, until we can’t get our cabernet delivered to our doors. then, let’s call the supreme court.

it’s all about agendas and convenience. then watch those ‘strict constructionist’ principles slip quietly out the door unnoticed by hacks like sean hannity (and, sadly, bruce).

It is certainly true that the definitions of many common words given by the Founding Fathers would be radically different from those presented by modern writers. And it’s an interesting exercise to try and guess the meaning of 18th century writing – and it is just a guess. It’s very difficult to put ourselves into the state of mind of an 18th century writer (even one as brilliant and as prolific as Jefferson where we have thousands of pages of careful writing from which to extract a context). This is why the real ‘living constitution’ arguements are largely acedemic and scholarly exercises.

The constitution has always been a “living document.” Not even the “originals” stuck to it. The Alien & Sedition acts of 1787 obviously violated the 1st amendment. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 was not authorized by the constitution. I could go on.

The WWI cases of US vs. Schenck and US vs. Frohwerk are only more evidence of the fact. What are you complaining about? Cite specific cases.

It’s not clear to me, Andy. Please explain clearly and completely how that particular vote in Congress was unconstitutional, citing the particular article or articles of the Constitution that were violated.

Actually, it still works. You’re hung on the petard that the subject of your post is bullshit, dipshit.

He is his own ass clown.

But thanks for using that old blame the poster not the subject of the post crap.

Ya’know it used to work, but we have learned, that those who live in a house of cards, should be very careful when they throw shit around.

H@@@

The Constitution is thus a contract, a legal document, and like all other legal documents, says no more or less than what it states.

Can’t be more of a parody than you, Chumpler.

It’s interesting how liberals will laud those who have intentional recreational drug problems as heros for pretending to deal with the issue. However, liberals will criminalize any conservative for having a problem with highly addictive medication for severe pain. This further shows the sick bastard hypocrisy of the liberal left and ass clowns like you, Chumpler.
Sorry you can’t see the difference, dingleberry.