Saturday, January 16, 2016

Calling for Article V is not "blowing up" the U.S. Constitution

Instapundit guest blogger Elizabeth Price Foley effectively rebuffs Washington Post article: “Tea Partyers Love the Constitution So Much–They Want to Blow it Up.
All I can do is shake my head and feel sorry for the ignorance this column displays.
Apparently, Ms. Rampell has forgotten her basic civics, and doesn’t realize that these calls for amendment by “right-wing Constitution thumper[s]” would employ Article V, which provides a lawful, supermajoritarian and republican process for amending the Constitution. Article V–which has been used 27 times to amend the Constitution–is evidence that the founding generation did not consider the original Constitution to be “perfect.” Indeed, the first ten amendments–the Bill of Rights–was ratified only two short years after ratification of the original Constitution.
Ms. Rampell fails to grasp that it the method of changing the Constitution–i.e., the process employed–matters to a “Constitution-thumper” because, well, the Constitution allow for amendments only via the processes set forth in Article V. To a liberal/progressive, by contrast, the method of constitutional change is irrelevant, so long as the Constitution changes in the “right way”; it’s only results, not process, that matters.
Thus. to a liberal/progressive like Ms. Rampell, it is perfectly fine for five liberal/progressive Supreme Court Justices to “amend” the Constitution with a stroke of their outcome-oriented pens. In Ms. Rampell’s eyes, using Article V’s legitimate, supermajoritarian, republican processes to effectuate constitutional change is so time-consuming and republican, it’s downright silly, and maybe even dangerous. Surely, it’s much better to just let elitist, liberal/progressive Supreme Court Justices alter the Constitution on the people’s “behalf” (unless of course they want to overrule decisions such as Roe v. Wade or roll back the Commerce Clause).
“Constitution-thumper[s]” believe in the Constitution–and this includes employing its only legal mechanism for alteration, Article V. Given the Supreme Court’s long history (since about 1937) of misconstruing the Constitution to serve liberal/progressive ends, calls to change the Constitution and restore its original vision is far from hypocrisy. It’s the height of principled constitutional conservatism. But I wouldn’t expect someone like Ms. Rampell to get that.

5 comments:

ricpic said...

Why do we so desperately need an Article V Constitutional Convention?

Recently the Supreme Court has solidified its power by declaring that citizens don't have the right to sue when politicians don't enforce the laws passed by the people directly. Seven million Californians passed Prop 8 that declared that marriage was between a man and a woman. The fascist Democrat politicians of California, including Jerry Brown, refused to defend the people's law showing that Democrats do not believe that power flows from the people. But if the people don't have standing to demand that the laws they passed be enforced, clearly the people, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, have no power.

Article in today's American Thinker
Return Power to the People
Tom Trinko

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

WaPo hack, Ms. Rampell, thumps a totalitarian bible.

Rabel said...

We The People just elected Barack Obama - twice. At least 40% of us want to elect Hillary effin Clinton President of these here United States of America. The chance of gaining the supermajorities necessary to make multiple amendments to the Constitution favored and promoted by conservatives is practically zero.

In addition, whether led by the governor of Texas or Karl Rove or the Blogfather I have zero confidence that our current political class of whatever persuasion will write amendments to the Constitution which are superior to the original.

Take a seat Governor Abbott.

Oops.

Chip Ahoy said...

My plan was to read the position superficially collecting all the damaging adjectives intended to appeal to that type of reader, Constitutional fetish, Constitution thumpers, and the like then list them.

Declare by the list provided the simple fact of civil discourse abandoned.
Abandon all the terms listed, never use any of them again, instead intensify every adjective and double their number and step and stride all throughout Tourette'sville with undisciplined abandon of the sort your mother would slap the living shit of you for uttering and lay it on thickly. But NEVER acknowledge the original snark even to turn it around, give it no energy whatsoever. Rather, make her wish she never opened her stupid fucking mouth in terms she never imagined.

But then I dropped it 1/3 the way through because Jesus broke through and said, "Dude.

Do something useful like clear out the dried plants salvaged from the patio. Leave the bint be. Not your dealio, Emilio"

He seems to have mistaken me for somebody else, but the point is taken.

edutcher said...

The Lefties know term limits for Congress and the Federal Judiciary would be the end of them.

Toss in term limits for civil service and they're screwed.

PS Mark Levin's got a better set of amendments (to which I linked), off which Abbott riffs.