OBAMA AND OUR CONSTITUTION
This is in response to a commenter that acknowledged that Barack may want to "play with the Constitution a bit too much" and asked "but, don't we have enough checks and balances" and further, "doesn't he have a lot of accountability before anything can really be changed?"
First, our founding fathers did an outstanding job of designing our governmental structure with the 3 equal branches and it's checks and balances. However, nothing is perfect and foolproof.
Granted, it is not easy to change the constitution vis-à-vis constitutional amendments. And that is precisely what they wanted.
But, liberals/progressives/socialists, as Barack himself stated as much in his 2001 interview, do not like our constitution as written by our founding fathers.
That is why they want to tell us it is a living, breathing, document. (Read easy to change.)
Unfortunately, you can use judicial fiat. The Dems successfully blocked many lower court judges Bush had put forward. Thus, there are a lot of positions open that Obama can pack the judicial system with. Also, he may have 2 or 3 SCOTUS justices to appoint.
With the most liberal U.S. president we have ever had, with a liberal Congress (providing the Dems increase their margins) and a liberally minded SCOTUS, a lot of damage can be done through enactment of new laws provided by a liberal congress that may be in conflict with the ORIGINAL intent of the US Constitution and what our forefathers intended.
But with a liberal court system that shares the view that the constitution needs to be "," they can get their changes made through judicial activism.
And just WHERE is the checks and balances that keep the "justice system" in check?
Once new laws are passed and our constitution is subjected to the reinterpretation of a liberal supreme court, it is not easy for the pendulum to swing back far enough to have these draconian measures turned back in future years.
Take Roe v. Wade for example. Regardless which side you take on this issue (the country is roughly split 50/50 on this issue) many see this as an example of judicial activism, finding the right to abortion somewhere in the constitution.
The liberal left worked long and hard before finally getting a friendly supreme court to rule that abortion is a legally protected constitutional right.
The conservative right continues to work at getting it overturned. It's been almost 36 years since the Roe v Wade case was decided. It is not easy to undue the damage that can be done and could be done in a 4 year term with Lord Obama at the wheel.
First, our founding fathers did an outstanding job of designing our governmental structure with the 3 equal branches and it's checks and balances. However, nothing is perfect and foolproof.
Granted, it is not easy to change the constitution vis-à-vis constitutional amendments. And that is precisely what they wanted.
But, liberals/progressives/socialists, as Barack himself stated as much in his 2001 interview, do not like our constitution as written by our founding fathers.
That is why they want to tell us it is a living, breathing, document. (Read easy to change.)
Unfortunately, you can use judicial fiat. The Dems successfully blocked many lower court judges Bush had put forward. Thus, there are a lot of positions open that Obama can pack the judicial system with. Also, he may have 2 or 3 SCOTUS justices to appoint.
With the most liberal U.S. president we have ever had, with a liberal Congress (providing the Dems increase their margins) and a liberally minded SCOTUS, a lot of damage can be done through enactment of new laws provided by a liberal congress that may be in conflict with the ORIGINAL intent of the US Constitution and what our forefathers intended.
But with a liberal court system that shares the view that the constitution needs to be "," they can get their changes made through judicial activism.
And just WHERE is the checks and balances that keep the "justice system" in check?
Once new laws are passed and our constitution is subjected to the reinterpretation of a liberal supreme court, it is not easy for the pendulum to swing back far enough to have these draconian measures turned back in future years.
Take Roe v. Wade for example. Regardless which side you take on this issue (the country is roughly split 50/50 on this issue) many see this as an example of judicial activism, finding the right to abortion somewhere in the constitution.
The liberal left worked long and hard before finally getting a friendly supreme court to rule that abortion is a legally protected constitutional right.
The conservative right continues to work at getting it overturned. It's been almost 36 years since the Roe v Wade case was decided. It is not easy to undue the damage that can be done and could be done in a 4 year term with Lord Obama at the wheel.
posted by HeavyHanded at
9:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home