Living Document
Around 1900, Harvard and other progressives tried to re-invent Contract Law and the Constitution as a "Living Document".
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2018-07-15 |
If you believe we're a democracy where only 9 Justices opinions matter, and you think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind, then you might just be a progressive. That's basically "living document" theory -- that a contract means nothing, if you can imagine it should have said something else, and precedent/increment it into that new thing over time.
More[edit | edit source]
Let's break it down, what that means to something like the Bill of Rights:
- 1A - Congress shall make no law that the Supreme Court doesn't approve of, that will respect an establishment of religion, and only prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, when the Supreme Court approves.
- 2A - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed whenever the Supreme Court says it can be.
- 4A - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall only be violated, and their places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, when the Supreme Court says it can be.
- 10A - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the Supreme Court to decide.
Are you getting the picture? If we assume the "Living Document", then that means that you have no rights, only privileges granted to you by the state, and the supreme authority is the Supreme Court.
Just like the Democrats/Progressives invented the idea of superdelegates: the idea that the parties delegates are more important than the people's delegates, and thus they can override democracy -- the Democrats/Progressives tried to invent the idea that we have legislators (Congress) and super-legislators (Supreme Court) that gets to invent laws that should have been written, from the bench. That you can imagine things that aren't there, invent law, and then use that invented law in the future as "precedent" to NOT go back to original intent, but use that invented law as the basis for creep incrementalism to invent more law. Until the final contract looks nothing at all like the agreement between the originators.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
You can not have a "living document" and rights and liberties: they are diametrically opposed. If a contract can change, then a contract means nothing, and you should never agree to one. And in the same way, if the Constitution can be changed without using the agreed upon amendment process, then the Constitution means nothing other than a way for the bullies to use fake judicial system to steal your liberties. Since they broke the contract first, you are not bound by the contract by anything other than the rule of force. (And anything you do to violate an already broken agreement, is not longer an immoral act).
In other words, a contract means nothing, the only thing that matters is the opinions of 9 oligarchs residing in the top court. Which makes America a Democracy where only 9 people's opinions matter. All the Democrats caterwauling about the Supreme Court, is because first they tried to fuck-up the balances of power, and allow the Supreme's to circumvent the law (or re-invent it). Then they screamed because sometimes that new super-legislator doesn't do what they want. And finally, they scream because the Conservatives are trying to turn the Court back into what it was designed as: arbiters of the law as written, not editors of it (based on progressives fevered imagination).
Whenever someone says "living document", I'm immediately put a mental note that this person is either special needs, or completely indoctrinated into progressive dogma to where their rational brain has been replaced with liberal talking points. Further conversation with them on anything to do with the law, justice, Democracy or civics is a waste of time. I usually smile, and exit from the discussion and label the person willfully ignorant and a chimp. (Over-emotional and non-sentient simian, who will fling feces at anyone smarter than they are: which is most 4th graders).
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
🔗 Links
Tags: Progressivism Laws Supreme Court
