Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Every member of Congress, every elected official, and most Federal employees have to swear an oath before taking office. That oath requires them to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Every single Democrat who wants to eliminate or circumvent any portion of the Constitution without going through the proper amendment process as established BY the Constitution is by definition a liar, and an enemy of the state.  They have used the Supreme Court to effect the changes they could not get through legislation, and now that power is threatened by the elevation of Judge Kavanaugh to associate justice.

If Trump is able to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with the Senate solidly in the control of Republicans, the Left will come completely unglued, I think.  As Vanderleun said in my previous post:  “From the Left’s point of view, it’s either accept defeat at the hands of people they truly believe are subhuman or start shooting the subhumans.“

Those on the Left have repeatedly bemoaned the fact that the Constitution stands in the way of the “Progress” they are pushing – the Electoral College, for instance, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.  Want to abolish it? 

Amendment process:  Article V. The way they’ve always accomplished end-runs around the Constitution has been not through the Legislative and Executive branches – their ideas tend to be unpopular and so cannot gather sufficient votes – but through the Federal Courts, and the Supreme Court in particular.  If Notorious RBG is replaced by a strict Constitutionalist, then that avenue will be cut off for the next couple of decades at least.

If you want an example of the “Living Document” perversion of the Constitution, I give you the Fifth Amendment’s ‘Taking” clause:  “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” 

When written, the original public understanding of “public use” meant for roads, sewers, etc. – things the .gov had to do to improve access or services for the people.  Just three Supreme Court cases gutted that. 

The first, Berman v. Parker (1954) changed the definition of  “public use” to “public benefit.”  In 1984′s Hawaii v. Midkiff, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s first majority opinion, redefined “public benefit” to “fairness.” 

The outcome was not what was intended. (This is my shocked face.)  The third case, Kelo v. New London (2005) redefined it again to mean “increased property tax revenue.”  That one didn’t turn out as intended either. In fact, a sitting Connecticut Supreme Court Justice apologized to Suzette Kelo for his vote on the case in the aftermath.

Just three court cases altered the meaning of the “Takings” clause of the 5th Amendment, by redefining the meaning of the words “public use” – that’s the “Living Document” process, which the Supreme Court is there to STOP, not enable.  As Justice Scalia once asked,

What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?

Apparently. One little nibble at a time.

Smart Preppers Shop Here!