Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RevDisk on May 21, 2010, 12:34:12 AM
-
http://www.redstate.com/katyabram/2010/04/25/pa-attorney-general-believes-constitution-is-a-living-document/
Words have connotations. When the words “living document” are uttered about the U.S. Constitution any conservative student of history will shutter with bewilderment and horror. Those words were spoken on two separate occasions last weekend by Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, Tom Corbett. I was present at the PA Leadership Conference when he first uttered those words from the podium as he was explaining why he should be elected as the next Governor of Pennsylvania. The moment those words passed his lips an audible gasp swept across the room full of conservatives.
Now one may ask, why this is such an awful thing to say? Allow President Obama to explain it himself and you will see why this room of conservatives was shocked by those specific words.
Barack Obama stated in his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” (pages 53-54)
“I appreciate the temptation on the part of Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed and unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation, and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow.
Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”
Progressives believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. Their view is it is organic and easily changed to suit the needs of a changing society. Those in the Tea Party movement and conservatives alike understand the Constitution from the view of original intent where the Founders intent guides our understanding of its application. This is why Attorney General Corbett’s words have caused a stir.
The Pennsylvania Republican Committee’s Chairman, Rob Gleason, has chastised Corbett’s opponent Sam Rohrer for “creating an issue” after publicizing this video on his website. Mr. Gleason, I beg to differ. This issue was created by Mr. Corbett and the words he chose to use. If those words were not something he believed then they should not have been said. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
The Republican Committee is in for a rude awakening in May. Citizens from across the state of Pennsylvania asked the committee to not endorse any candidates. The Committee pressed onward and anointed those whom they felt were next in line. It is time for the Committee to understand the principles are they are to stand for. May I remind the Committee of 2004 and who they endorsed? I would surely hate to see Pennsylvania end up with another Arlen Specter.
Katy Abram is the Arlen Specter town hall attendee who told him he has “awakened a sleeping giant.” She can be followed at twitter/katyabram.com and www.katyabram.com.
Unfortunately, this guy is likely to be the next Guv. Guy is partisan to the core. Not in any good way. As AG, he launched an investigation into bonuses being paid to aides to Dem politicians, primarily Bill DeWeese. Now, it was well known that Senate Republicans were even worse... But Corbett dragged his feet on investigating any Repubs until it was insanely obvious that he was seriously abusing his position. He then tried legal intimidation against bloggers who pointed this out.
I have a bad feeling that this guy will likely be the next Guv. I don't think this will be a very pleasant occasion.
-
When the words “living document” are uttered about the U.S. Constitution any conservative student of history who still believes in reason and law will shutter with bewilderment and horror.
Corrected.
-
must be read in the context of an ever-changing world
The US Constitution was not created for the world.
-
The words 'living' and 'document' are mutually opposed.
-
The fact of the matter is that Progressives are seriously wrong about the Constitution. What is it said about America? That we are a society of laws, not men! If that is so, then society is to conform itself to the Constitution not the other way around. That is why it is a negative document. It is not a living document. The founders defined it as such by the way it is written and the fact that there is a clause that controls it's ability to be modified. Changes are to be made to it, if at all, by the process that is described in it. If the Constitution is a living document, then it is basically not needed at all.
People who think as Obama does are more than dangerous to the Republic. Their beliefs are actually treasonous in my mind.
-
The Constitution is no more a living document than Hamlet is a living document meant to be re-written at will by mental midgets.
But that is about what you'd expect in a time like our own.
-
The Constitution is not a living document inviting entry; it is a locus of sacred insight whose precepts could have skull & crossbones on them telling the foolish and irreverent to keep their distance.
-
I'd love to enter into a contract after extremely long and detailed debate and bargaining and then just do whatever I want, claiming the contract to be a 'living document.'
-
Too bad it's not alive; it would have put a boot up some people's asses by now.
-
If the Constitution is a living document, then it is basically not needed at all.
Exactly ... =(
-
Get the axe; it's alive.
-
Too bad it's not alive; it would have put a boot up some people's asses by now.
Ok, that's humour right there. =D
-
I earned the enmity of a US History professor who called himself a 'conservative' but was actually a flaming leftie and thought FDR was awesome.
When he started talking about the living constitution, I growled:
'PROFESSOR! IT LIVES!'
-
Too bad it's not alive; it would have put a boot up some people's asses by now.
Pure Win !!!