DISQUS

"thomasjames quotes Scalia calling the concept of the Constitution as a living document as “idiotic.” During the last seven and half years, the Constitution under gone more changed in the post-Civil War period than any other time. This change has obviously not come from an amendment, and the vast majority has not come from bench. It has come from the executive branch which feels like it is above precedent and current Supreme Court decisions. If conservatives consider the concept of a “living document” as “idiotic,” why are the “conservatives” of the Bush administration altering the Constitution through non-traditional, illegal processes?"

Hey alien do you have any proof for this self serving argument. You say under the last seven and half years "the Constitution under gone more changed (sic) in post-Civil War period than any other time." Can you back that up at all, it sounds an awful lot like your opinion or perhaps some other liberal writers. Even if what you say is true which I truly believe its not, the Court may have shifted to interpreting the Constitution as it was written, that does not change the fact that if we want something outside of what was originally written that we as a people should not pursue an amendment instead of liberal activist judges that dominated the later half of the 1900's to accomplish change.

I disagree with your interpretation of the Executive Vesting Clause and you claim what Bush-Cheney have done is unconstitutional, but I would have to say what other Presidents such as Truman did with the Executive power (excuse me for adding the "s" earlier) is far more outrageous. Lincoln's expansion of executive power during the Civil War set the precedent for everything after that and his use of the power far exceeds Bush-Cheney. But enough I already agreed that Bush used his Executive power in a manner that showed poor leadership and lack of transparency that is saddening.

Further going back Marbury v. Madision that decision could not stand without originalism. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government and no judicial review.

Attorney General Meese in speech in 1985 stated:

"Where the language of the Constitution is specific, it must be obeyed. Where there is a demonstrable consensus amoung the Framers and ratifiers as to a principle stated or implied by the Constitution, it should be followed. Where there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning or reach of a constitutional provision, it should be interpreted and applied in a manner so as to at least not contradict the text of the Constitution itself."

So if means we need another Scalia that follows that originalist theory then by all means, that is better than a Brennan that votes his own conscience instead of what the Constitution says.

Gloria Steinem denigrates a lot of people everytime she opens her mouth or writes anything, so what if Goldberg let her have it back. Fair is fair. Shouldn't this "article" have gone under the commentary. It is so obviously slanted that it surely doesnt belong with the "objective" news.

Sorry Barb, your hypocrisy and partisan spinning is just disgusting on this one. So you think that resigning from a position because of no confidence vote is equal to breaking the law multiple times. I worry more about electing a lobbyist who believes he is above the law. That said it is a shame that we have to pick from two skeazy poor choices.

Ok V.B. I am gonna go slow on this one for you.....The President is vested under the constitution with what is called "executive powers." Its right there first line of Article II. That means that the president was granted under the Constitution those authorities that were traditionally wielded by executives. This is fairly easily to document in history, while the Articles of Confederation were in play they lacked an independent chief executive and instead the Continental Congress exercised the executive powers. Executive privilege was then and is now considered part of those powers much the same as emergency powers were.

Do I agree that its honorable or the best way for a president act by withholding information from the Congress, no. Does it violate his duty be the best leader possible for the Country, probably. Should he release the the records to Congress unless it in some endangers national security, hell yes!

Next point, your attack on Scalia is just that of another confused lefty. Scalia is simply doing what I did just now for you slowly. Correctly applying and upholding the Constitution. This idea of an evolving Constitution is just what Scalia calls it, idiotic. Its not an evolving document to be interpreted and wield by judges as it suites them it. If needs changing to stay in step in the Country thats what amendments are for. We have 27 amendments the last one was ratified in 1992. Our system of government was not set up for it to be a living document, to allow it to be so destroy the checks and balances set forth within the Constitution itself. There is a reason that the powers were separated across three branches. It was to keep unelected Judges from legislating from the bench, to keep the Legislature from deciding everything, and to keep a president from becoming a king.

But meanwhile, VB, you and your partisan Dem friends or Republicon enemies and hateful partisan conflict mongering are the real threat to our Liberty. Its not Scalia we should be afraid of, its the partisan politicians that trample our Constitution that we should worry about. And don't whine about Bush v. Gore, Gore threw that one into the Courts, they filed the lawsuit. Instead blame the Republicrats that have long failed to fix the electoral college because it suits their partisan needs not to.

Neither the office of Sen. John McCain nor that of Sen. Barack Obama returned requests for comment. Earlier this year, however, both candidates supported a controversial bill expanding the White House powers for warrantless wiretapping of Americans.

Please not the that BOTH candidates supported that bill. The only goal of these people is to keep you partisan and mad so they can continue to steal your liberties. Don't be fooled, don't vote for either of these horrible candidates or their VPs.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/BreakTheMatrix/Re...

90% of the Democrats in Congress are lawyers....I'm just sayin...

So your book only includes those who do not engage in charitable actions or perhaps a better way to say it is that your kind of leader does not list in his qualifications a compassion for his fellow man ....ok whatever floats your boat buddy!

spin spin spin barb

spin spin spin barb

And both Palin and Chavez are more qualified than Obama.

Think about that for awhile.

And both Palin and Chavez are more qualified than Obama.

Think about that for awhile.

"had no" not "had now" sorry

"had no" not "had now" sorry

Thats fine I understand the point that they are too big to fail, but short term that might be true but the real truth is that they will eventually. This is a market correction and as long as you delay surgery the worse the patient becomes. I understand that GSE's helped American's attain home ownership that does not make them constitutional.

The problem is the millions of Americans had now business getting the loans that allowed them homeownership. It was greedy lending that landed us in this situation and passing the buck to our children in the form of more debt is morally wrong.

Thats fine I understand the point that they are too big to fail, but short term that might be true but the real truth is that they will eventually. This is a market correction and as long as you delay surgery the worse the patient becomes. I understand that GSE's helped American's attain home ownership that does not make them constitutional.

The problem is the millions of Americans had now business getting the loans that allowed them homeownership. It was greedy lending that landed us in this situation and passing the buck to our children in the form of more debt is morally wrong.

The is just another horrible choice by Congress and Bush to put a band-aid on a bullet wound. Except now by putting our federal band-aid soon to be hemorrhaging fatal wound we have passed the buck to every tax payer in the United States.

Erin Quinn is wrong these GSE's are unconstitutional and we shouldn't have them.

The is just another horrible choice by Congress and Bush to put a band-aid on a bullet wound. Except now by putting our federal band-aid soon to be hemorrhaging fatal wound we have passed the buck to every tax payer in the United States.

Erin Quinn is wrong these GSE's are unconstitutional and we shouldn't have them.

Ummm Barb your little attack on Heath is cute, but God, guns, and gays are actually issues surrounding civil liberties. Lol, have you read the Constitution namely the 1st and 2nd amendments?.....I don't what your personal beef is with Heath but you look foolish when talk of civil liberties and don't even know what they are. I promise Heath isn't a secret Republican operative. I would also bet that rural and independent voters have a much better taste for what is going with the economy, health care and jobs than you do. Just because they aren't embracing the higher taxes and socialism of the dems doesn't mean that they don't get it. Oh and one more mistake, the trainwrecks coming are the product of "neo-con" policies not "conservative" policies, I don't know if you can grasp that, but there are big differences.

Ummm Barb your little attack on Heath is cute, but God, guns, and gays are actually issues surrounding civil liberties. Lol, have you read the Constitution namely the 1st and 2nd amendments?.....I don't what your personal beef is with Heath but you look foolish when talk of civil liberties and don't even know what they are. I promise Heath isn't a secret Republican operative. I would also bet that rural and independent voters have a much better taste for what is going with the economy, health care and jobs than you do. Just because they aren't embracing the higher taxes and socialism of the dems doesn't mean that they don't get it. Oh and one more mistake, the trainwrecks coming are the product of "neo-con" policies not "conservative" policies, I don't know if you can grasp that, but there are big differences.

riteizrite it just might, I can certainly think might just be an excellent qualification for any leader.....

riteizrite it just might, I can certainly think might just be an excellent qualification for any leader.....

Kate I am not sure I agree with you stance that it is the Republicans that are manufacturing social problems to win elections. I would say both parties inject social issues into national elections. Issues that should not even be considered at the federal level. Both parties are wrong in convincing the people that issues of abortion, marriage, etc. are best decided at a federal level. Anybody with an ounce of common sense can see that social and moral issues are best decided by communities. These issues are never black and white so why do expect that a federal government thousands of miles away from the problem is going to be able to give you the correct answer.

Kate I am not sure I agree with you stance that it is the Republicans that are manufacturing social problems to win elections. I would say both parties inject social issues into national elections. Issues that should not even be considered at the federal level. Both parties are wrong in convincing the people that issues of abortion, marriage, etc. are best decided at a federal level. Anybody with an ounce of common sense can see that social and moral issues are best decided by communities. These issues are never black and white so why do expect that a federal government thousands of miles away from the problem is going to be able to give you the correct answer.

No thats not much of a story Dems and Republicans attend meetings of people who finance lies and half truths happens all the time. Darren and Justine were standing in front of the stage for over 20 minutes right up until the deal started. Pickens is a profiteer and this really is about his personal gain, just because the dems are buying this scheme doesn't mean anything except that they like this flavor of cool-aid this time. And before all of the dems start touting this as some good thing that they are open minded enough to listen to "picken's plan" maybe some more research is in order.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Timot...

No thats not much of a story Dems and Republicans attend meetings of people who finance lies and half truths happens all the time. Darren and Justine were standing in front of the stage for over 20 minutes right up until the deal started. Pickens is a profiteer and this really is about his personal gain, just because the dems are buying this scheme doesn't mean anything except that they like this flavor of cool-aid this time. And before all of the dems start touting this as some good thing that they are open minded enough to listen to "picken's plan" maybe some more research is in order.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Timot...