Liberals Hate the Constitution

15 Responses to “Liberals Hate the Constitution”

1. tgirsch Says:
   January 20th, 2006 at 11:43 pm

   Nah, we (or, more specifically, I) just hate your archaic interpretation thereof. :)

2. Addison Says:
   January 22nd, 2006 at 8:53 am

   Yeah, I don’t hate Shakespeare.

   I just hate it when it’s performed by actors with English accents on a stage, exactly as written.

   Far better to use the stories as a “guideline” and let the actors “ad lib” – and let the audience interact!

3. Absinthe & Cookies (a bit bitter, a bit sweet) Says:
   January 22nd, 2006 at 12:23 pm

   Four Years of New Friends…

   Another in my series of blogiversary posts. Friends, that’s been the highlight. In four years, I’ve met a lot of……

4. Carl Goss Says:
   January 22nd, 2006 at 12:58 pm

   Re: Constitution.

   No, we welfare-state liberals love the constitution.

   It’s the conservatives who are always pushing to amend it.

5. Xrlq Says:
   January 22nd, 2006 at 1:36 pm

   If by “amend” you mean “actually follow the constitutional procedure for amending the Constitution,” then you are probably right that conservatives are more likely to push to amend it. That’s because liberals have found a much easier way of dispensing with the parts of the Constitution they don’t like: ignore them entirely, or stack the court with cronies who can be trusted to “interpret” them out of existence.

   Take, for example, the one “constitutional” principle liberals really do seem to care about: abortion. Has any prominent liberal proposed a constitutional amendment to codify that right and end the controversy over Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood once and for all? If not, why not?

6. aphrael Says:
   January 23rd, 2006 at 2:05 pm

   I reject the notion that ‘tgirsch’ speaks for all liberals.

   This is a bit like me posting a blog entry claiming, on the basis of one post at one conservative web site, that conservatives hate freedom of speech.

   I expect better of you.

7. Xrlq Says:
   January 23rd, 2006 at 2:42 pm

   Aphrael, I think you my have fallen into the great sarchasm. This was not a serious post, just a tongue in cheek flame in response to TGirsch’s self-described “weekend flame bait.”

8. SayUncle » Quote of the Day Says:
   January 31st, 2006 at 10:19 am

   [...] A comment by Addison over at Xrlq’s on penumbra, living constitution stuff: Yeah, I don

9. tgirsch Says:
   January 31st, 2006 at 3:55 pm

   Xrlq:

   Has any prominent liberal proposed a constitutional amendment to codify that right and end the controversy over Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood once and for all? If not, why not?

   Setting aside whether abortion truly is a “liberal” or “conservative” issue (which is debatable), the simple reason is that the status quo is on the side of those who oppose criminalization. And if “liberals” believe the Constitution can be construed to protect personal autonomy decisions such as abortion, then such an amendment isn’t necessary.

   I could turn the question around, of course, and ask why conservatives haven’t openly tried to amend the constitution to prohibit it (for example, a “life begins at conception” amendment, or some such).

   In neither case would the amendment actually pass, by the way.

10. tgirsch Says:
    January 31st, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    Addison:

    The day people start trying to intervene in my life based on what they suspect Shakespeare’s values were, you’ll have an interesting analogy. :)

11. Xrlq Says:
    January 31st, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    TGirsch, I suppose you could turn anything around, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to do so. Liberals obviously care very much about protecting the “constitutional” right to abortion, and are also wont to brag about the overwhelming majority of Americans who supposedly agree with them. If so, passing an amendment to make explicit what they claim is already implicit would seem to be a no-brainer. Why rack your brain over whether or not Judge Roberts will find a hidden “constitutional” right to abortion, if you think the votes are there to add a clear one that will be upheld by liberals, conservatives, originalists and strict constructionists alike?

    Amending the Constitution to prohibit abortion, by contrast, would be downright weird. The original Constitution didn’t prohibit private citizens from doing anything. The current one does, but only in cases of slavery and bootlegging. Even the most ardent pro-lifer would be hard pressed to explain why the Constitution should prohibit the killing of the unborn, when it doesn’t even prohibit the killing of the born.

12. actus Says:
    February 3rd, 2006 at 9:26 am

    I’d love it if we had a constitutional amendment that said ‘the right to privacy shall not be infringed.’ Its not like people don’t like the right itself, do they? They just dont’ like how the court got to it.

13. Xrlq Says:
    February 3rd, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    Most like the basic concept, but in addition to not liking how the courts got to it, some of us aren’t too keen on what the courts have done with it, either.

14. actus Says:
    February 4th, 2006 at 9:45 am

    Ah. So there is a problem wiht having a right ot privacy. Ok.

15. Xrlq Says:
    February 4th, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    Sure, Acthole, that’s it. There’s no problem with having a right to privacy, but there’s a huge problem wiht having a right ot privacy.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CommentLuv Enabled

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail