There Are Two Fundamentally Irreconcilable Constitutional Visions

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

It’s been a momentous couple of weeks at the Supreme Court. As usual, they saved the big cases for the end. This year the big three were Bruen (gun rights), Dobbs (abortion rights) and West Virginia (administrative regulation of CO2).

All three cases were decided 6-3 along ideological lines. These cases involved the most basic issues of what the Constitution is and how it is to be interpreted. On those issues there is virtually no hope of one side ever convincing anyone from the other side. There just are two fundamentally irreconcilable visions of how this should work. The two visions can be summarized in just a few sentences each:

  • Vision 1. The Constitution allocates powers to the three branches of government, and also lists certain rights entitled to constitutional protection. The role of the courts is (1) to assure that the powers are exercised only by those to whom they are allocated, (2) to protect the enumerated rights, and (3) as to things claimed to be rights but not listed, to avoid getting involved.
  • Vision 2. The Constitution is an archaic document adopted more than 200 years ago, and largely obsolete. The role of the courts is to implement the current priorities of the academic left and then somehow rationalize how that is consistent with the written document. If a right is enumerated in the Constitution but disfavored by the current left (e.g., the right to “keep and bear arms”), then the courts should find a way to uphold enactments that minimize that right down to the point that it is a nullity. If a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, but is a priority of the left (e.g., abortion), then that right can be discovered in some vague and unspecific constitutional language (“due process”). And if the left has a priority to transform the economy and the way the people live, but the Congress does not have sufficient majorities to enact that priority, then the Executive agencies can implement that priority on their own authority, and the role of the courts is to assist the agencies in finding something in the tens of thousands of pages of federal statutes, however vague and dubious, that can be claimed to authorize the action.

Suppose that you are on the Supreme Court, and you subscribe to Vision 2; and thus you find yourself time after time on the losing end of these 6-3 decisions. What’s your strategy in writing your dissents? Actually, it’s easy. The goal is to divert attention away from the actual Constitution as far and as quickly as possible. Instead, you argue that the position of the current left is the only moral position, and anyone who might oppose it is a monster. Does this have anything to do with the Constitution? No, but so what? Don’t worry — you have the entirety of the media and academia to support you and to help keep the people from figuring out what you are doing.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the dissents in the three decisions that are the subject of this post. First, Bruen. Justice Thomas has written a majority opinion that basically says that the right to “keep and bear arms” is right there in the Constitution, Second Amendment, and that this right is entitled to the same recognition and status as the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Here is the first paragraph of Justice Breyer’s dissent:

In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention (last updated May 4, 2022) (CDC, Fast Facts), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ firearms/fastfact.html. Since the start of this year (2022), there have been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day. See Gun Violence Archive (last visited June 20, 2022), https://www.gunviolence archive.org. Gun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents. J. Goldstick, R. Cunningham, & P. Carter, Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States, 386 New England J. Med. 1955 (May 19, 2022) (Goldstick).

In the face of these statistics, how could you be against New York’s gun regulation, you monster? Next up we have the joint Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan dissent (no lead author) in Dobbs. This time you must counter the Alito majority decision that says, basically, sorry, but the Constitution doesn’t say anything about a right to abortion, so it’s up to the states. Here again is the first paragraph:

For half a century, Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), have protected the liberty and equality of women. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that the Constitution safeguards a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to bear a child. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages of pregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future would be. See Casey, 505 U. S., at 853; Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 171–172 (2007) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.

To oppose us would be to take women back to the Middle Ages. And what exactly does that have to do with the Constitution? Only a troglodyte could ask such a question! Obviously, the Constitution says whatever is needed to support these critical moral principles. I hope you’re starting to get the idea how this is done. Now on to West Virginia. This time you must counter Chief Justice Roberts, who in essence says that since the Constitution grants “all legislative powers” to the Congress, administrative agencies can’t undertake a complete transformation of the economy on their own authority. Your argument (this time from Justice Kagan) is: but this is just so terribly, critically important to save the planet! Here’s the second paragraph of the Kagan dissent:

Climate change’s causes and dangers are no longer subject to serious doubt. Modern science is “unequivocal that human influence”—in particular, the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide—“has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report, The Physical Science Basis: Headline Statements 1 (2021). The Earth is now warmer than at any time “in the history of modern civilization,” with the six warmest years on record all occurring in the last decade. U. S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. I, p. 10 (2017); Brief for Climate Scientists as Amici Curiae 8. The rise in temperatures brings with it “increases in heat- related deaths,” “coastal inundation and erosion,” “more frequent and intense hurricanes, floods, and other extreme weather events,” “drought,” “destruction of ecosystems,” and “potentially significant disruptions of food production.” American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U. S. 410, 417 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean. See Brief for Climate Scientists as Amici Curiae 6. Rising waters, scorching heat, and other severe weather conditions could force “mass migration events[,] political crises, civil unrest,” and “even state failure.” Dept. of Defense, Climate Risk Analysis 8 (2021). And by the end of this century, climate change could be the cause of “4.6 million excess yearly deaths.” See R. Bressler, The Mortality Cost of Carbon, 12 Nature Communications 4467, p. 5 (2021).

The text of the Constitution? The reservation of “all legislative powers” to the Congress? Those are for chumps. By page 5 of her dissent, Justice Kagan has made it clear that a statute that just said “The government must do everything appropriate to save the planet; EPA to implement.” would be just fine with her to authorize the agency to transform the economy:

A key reason Congress makes broad delegations like Section 111 is so an agency can respond, approriately and commensurately, to new and big problems. Congress knows what it doesn’t and can’t know when it drafts a statute; and Congress therefore gives an expert agency the power to address issues—even significant ones—as and when they arise.

Of the three decisions discussed, the one likely to have the most far-reaching impact is West Virginia. During his first days and weeks in office, President Biden issued one Executive Order after another instructing every part of the bureaucracy to figure out any way it could to implement the “climate” agenda. Statutory authorization? Who needs that? Now, not only is EPA’s most expansive regulatory initiative getting shut down, but multiple other agencies have comparable gambits likely to fail in the courts. Most famously, the SEC is now out with 100 pages or so of new proposed regulations, mandating corporate disclosures of “emissions”; and the Federal Reserve supposedly is adopting saving the climate as a third of its missions (the other two being price stability and full employment). More such dubious initiatives are under way in agencies from the Department of Energy to the Department of the Interior.

Read the full article here.

4.9 29 votes
Article Rating
277 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rud Istvan
July 5, 2022 10:34 am

Good post. All three dissents are constitutionally ridiculous. As needed, when 2/3 of House and Senate and then a strong majority (3/4) of states agree, the Constitution can be amended via Article 5. The 18th and 21st amendments are examples (respectively Prohibition and it’s repeal).

JMurphy
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 5, 2022 1:56 pm

And those amendments point out how damaging and a step-back for America it is when religious fervour and arrogance tries to tell the American people that they can’t do something which has always been a part of human life and society, whether your religious, outraged principles like it or not. The high and mighty, isolated Republican politicians need to get down off their high-horses and see what everyday life is like in America, far from their sanitised, idyllic, safe mansions.

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 2:41 pm

I’m going to guess that you are talking about abortion. Abortion has only been a “right” for less than 50 years. Up till then, throughout history, it wasn’t a right.
And let’s talk about the desire of many Democrat politicians to make abortion a right up to and sometimes after birth?

If protecting innocent life is a religious position, then thank god for religion.

JMurphy
Reply to  MarkW
July 5, 2022 3:13 pm

Who mentioned ‘rights’? And if you think you have the right to determine when a woman should be forced to have a baby (to save an innocent life, according to your moral principles), then you are obviously one of those supposedly freedom-loving Republicans who believes you should have the freedom to curtail the freedom of others. Which god would you like to thank for religion?

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 3:24 pm

OK, I see you are one of those humans who believes that people have the right to kill anyone who inconveniences them.
The right to life trumps the right to not be inconvenienced.

BTW, I didn’t curtail the woman’s rights, she did that to herself.

JMurphy
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 3:47 am

Oh, so not only do you presume to decide when a foetal mass of cells develops life, you also want to blame the woman who…was too drunk/drugged to refuse sex; was too trusting to believe the man who said he would pull-out before he came; too reliant on a contraception that doesn’t guarantee protection; etc., etc. Yes, the woman’s fault and she must suffer the consequences because…you/Republican religious hypocrites say she must. Only in America…and other bastions of democracy like Egypt, Iraq, Haiti, etc. 🤦🏻‍♂️

Spetzer86
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 3:37 pm

The woman had a right not to have unprotected sex. She had a responsibility to herself to make sure she didn’t get pregnant. I suppose in this age, her responsibility included not allowing the man to get pregnant, especially if he wasn’t menstruating.

Even in cases of pregnancy from rape, 80% of the women choose to keep the child to term because the abortion process is basically a repeat of the original offense.

MarkW
Reply to  Spetzer86
July 5, 2022 4:03 pm

Schools have been teaching kids that they have a right to a life without consequences?
Fail to try hard in sports, everyone gets a trophy.
Fail to study in schools, get rid of grades and pass everybody.
Fail to learn a skill that employers want, we’ll create a minimum wage to force employers to pay you what you want anyway.
Don’t feel like working, we’ll create a guaranteed minimum income so that you don’t have to worry where your next meal is coming from.

JMurphy
Reply to  Spetzer86
July 6, 2022 3:49 am

Do you believe that protected sex is 100% safe? What about women who have their drinks spiked? Tough luck on them, eh?

Tring to Play Nice
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 5:31 am

You bring up the very rare case. How did her drink get spiked? How did she end up having unprotected sex? How bad do you think birth control methods are? A woman can avoid pregnancy very easily if she wants to. But all the arguments you stated are pure drivel because the court said abortion is an issue for the States. It did not ban abortion. If you would take the time to read the truth instead of leftest BS you might have some understanding of the issues.

whiten
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 8:27 am

JMurphy

It does no matter how you try to pervert the abortion rights.

It does not matter why and how about the way of a pregnancy and a supposed abortion that must be considered in given cases.

What matters is that there shall not be blank checks send right and left to a very inflated abortion industry, from state goverments, with no questions asked or any real book checking.
With no responsibility at all.

You see, that does not happen even with health care and hospital services.
If you can pay, you shall pay, else a life saving service may not be offered to you.
Why should abortion be treated otherwise!

Why should tax payers pick up the bill, by default, and with no any saying whatsoever for abortion of someone like AOC or Pelosi or Hillary, or some famous Billy?

The only responsibility from a state, to support an abortion, and paying for it in behalf of a woman, could be only if a woman can not afford it, or when a woman has being raped and a court order validates that condition.
Else a woman must pay.

Misscarriages are no abortion.

All these aspects are constitutionally under the right of States to regulate, in their own, independently to be asses and applied, via their legislature and goverment.
Rights that were blocked and voided by a wrong SCOTUS decision a half a century ago.

The latest SCOTUS decision has removed that yoke from the states.
Now each and every state has the right to decide how it will procede from now on.

The very first thing, after the SCOTUS decision, stands as a duty of office with/for the Governors, to reasses and decide, whether to keep delivering the blank cheecks to the abortion industry, or find a different path in that regard.
And therefor establishing a path for the legislature of the state to formely finalize a complete legislation about abortion… independently, as it supposes to be under the USA constitution.

The rest is simply giberish noise.

Sorry to say but yours sounds like a death cult propaganda, attempting to jeopardise the real meaning of that SCOTUS decision which you seem to hate.

cheers

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:00 am

So you need to have abortion available for all women up to and past birth, for those women who’s drinks get spiked.
Really.
Are you as desperate as your posts make you sound?

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:01 am

Regardless of how the woman got pregnant, every abortion kills an innocent baby.

paul courtney
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 12:32 pm

100% safe? Where’d that come from? Nothing is 100% safe, even reading your comment carries serious risk of losing IQ points.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 3:40 pm

Ever heard of “delayed gratification”? Most people younger than 40 never have. For them its always been “if it feels good then do it!”. And to hell with the consequences!

Abstinence *is* a birth control method. It is a moral choice in most societies. In this context the word “moral” means those beliefs and traditions that enable a society to survive.

Abortion on demand, including right up until birth, is a blight on society. It demeans the woman and the baby by saying the right to life is meaningless. That leads down the path to the Law of the Jungle – might is right and the strong survive.

We see the Law of the Jungle taking over our society more and more every day. It’s a shame.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 6, 2022 7:56 pm

Abortion supporters remind me of the book “The Velveteen Rabbit”.
You become real when somebody loves you.

To them if the woman doesn’t love the baby, then it’s OK to kill the baby.

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 4:16 pm

I curtail your freedom all the time by criminalizing actions that I deem unacceptable. That is why we have entire books of laws telling us what we cannot do. We are not free to act without regard for others. Women are free to not have a child by using birth control. It works very reliably (far better than any climate model). We are asking her and her partner to be responsible. I think the fundamental question is when does the unborn child have worth in our eyes and the right to live? Let’s not hide behind the right to privacy, which has nothing to do with the right to abortion.

JMurphy
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
July 6, 2022 3:54 am

And where the (not 100% guaranteed) birth control fails? Tough luck, eh? “You’re having that baby, whether you like it or not!” Great start for any kid born that way, right?

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:02 am

So it’s better to kill the baby rather than give it up for adoption?
What a kind caring person you are.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 3:46 pm

Unless you are the Virgin Mary there is one birth control method that works 100% of the time. It’s named “Abstinence”.

And don’t try the fooferah about temptation always overriding discipline. That’s an issue of character, not birth control.

When our society started moving away from being mostly agricultural is when this whole mess really began. Most kids that grew up on farms knew where chickens, cows, etc came from. They *also* knew the responsibility that went with that from having to feed and care for the young livestock. Most of them didn’t want to be saddled with that responsibility for a new baby human till they were ready. So abstinence was a ready and reliable choice. And it didn’t hurt to have that beaten into your head every Sunday at church!

“If it feels good then do it” is *NOT* a survival meme for society.

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 4:44 pm

Is killing the baby the best solution to that problem? However, almost all abortions happening in the US today are not from using contraceptives and still getting pregnant.

2hotel9
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 4:50 pm

Baby killer says what?

Dave Fair
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 6:46 pm

Uh, Murph, in our Republic the States determine which moral issues (incest, anybody?) to codify into law that are not covered by the Bill of Rights for individuals nor the Constitutional delegation of powers to the Federal government (10th Amendment). Your personal sense of morality is, by design, moderated by the State’s ballot boxes. You know, We the People?

Laws based on Judeo-Christian principles are the norm. Would you prefer Sharia Law? No freedom is absolute; there are societal controls on everybody. Licentiousness is not freedom. And I’m an atheist.

Your hatred or non-Leftists is manifest. You might want to do an ideological inventory.

JMurphy
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 3:57 am

Licentiousness? Do you think free love among consenting adults is dirty? You do, don’t you?

Tring to Play Nice
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 5:34 am

If you practice free love you are responsible for the consequences. You are an adult and this is not a video game. Grow up.

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:03 am

As usual, the leftists sees what it wants to see, not what was actually said.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 3:49 pm

Free love among consenting adults *IS* dirty, in the sense that it is immoral. And this is in the sense that morals are those traditions and beliefs that ensure the survival of a society.

Free love is nothing more than the meme “if it feels good then do it”. That meme is the primrose path to perdition for a society.

Kemaris
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 7:35 pm

So, you are fine with killing an innocent human being so you can have sex. Good to know. Not that your personal failings have anything to do with the US Constitution.

stinkerp
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 11:33 pm

The 14th Amendment, which was stretched beyond any reasonable reading to protect a ‘right’ not mentioned in the Constitution (which automatically means it’s up to the states to decide) also says “nor shall any State deprive any person if life…without due process.”

So where was the due process for the tens of millions who were deprived of life because the mother decided they don’t get to live?

JMurphy
Reply to  stinkerp
July 6, 2022 4:09 am

I’ve never heard of a foetus described as a person. Do you have proof of that description?

hiskorr
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 4:55 am

Have you never heard a pregnant woman say: “The baby just kicked me!”?

JMurphy
Reply to  hiskorr
July 6, 2022 5:45 am

Yes but I don’t believe it’s a person saying “Hey, let me out!” Unless you have proof otherwise?

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:05 am

I don’t believe that you are a person, and you are mighty annoying.
Does that mean I get to terminate you?
BTW, that’s 100% hypothetical.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 3:53 pm

Yes but I don’t believe it’s a person saying “Hey, let me out!” Unless you have proof otherwise?”

My guess is that you don’t believe a baby is a person till it can talk coherently. Infanticide would be ok with you, right?

Tring to Play Nice
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 5:35 am

Well the DNA is different than the mother’s. Maybe if you knew a little about science you would understand.

MarkW
Reply to  Tring to Play Nice
July 6, 2022 9:06 am

Like most leftists, it’s only science when it supports the position that JM has already taken.

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:04 am

A baby is a baby, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you go through.
Slavery was justified under the claim that blacks were sub-human.

Dave Fair
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:31 am

In accordance with the 10th Amendment it is one of the questions “… reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Your opinion matters not, Murph, outside of the ballot box.

Mike
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:48 am

Jeez man, I believe it is federal law which states that if you injure a pregnant woman and the baby is born dead, you will be charged with murder. But the woman can kill her unborn child wit impunity?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 3:52 pm

My guess is that you have never heard of the term “quickening”. It occurs around 16 weeks. That’s why so many abortion laws ban abortion after 16 weeks. While I personally don’t agree with the view that it is the point at which a fetus becomes a person, it seems to be a pretty common definition, even historically among many different societies and religions.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  JMurphy
July 8, 2022 8:51 am

Sure, as a matter of law, Scott Peterson was convicted of murder for the death of his wife and unborn child. Only persons can be murdered.

Jim G.
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 4:31 am

JMurphy;
Your comments demonstrate the thesis behind this post.
Since you cannot explain the constitutionality behind your arguments, you resort to rhetoric.

If you will, please explain the following:

  • Why the Federal Govt should have authority over an issue or right that is not present in the Constitution?
  • Why should the States not have control over issues and rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution?
  • Why do you expect all people of all states to believe the same thing?
  • Why should the people of a few states such as CA & NY be able to dictate what all states should do?

What this court did, was to try and return the behemoth ship of the State to the documents that it was founded upon.

The very reason we have a Senate is because the founders were concerned that the few states with large city populations would gain control of the entire nation. So, they implemented a check and balance to curb it. One check was the Senate, the other was the Electoral College. And we know full well how the liberals feel about the Electoral College.

Despite your rhetoric against religion, the Constitution states that our rights come from God, not man. If rights come from man, or the government, then we are doomed to the will of the party that is currently popular.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jim G.
AlanJ
Reply to  Jim G.
July 6, 2022 10:18 am

The United States Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of God, and certainly does not suggest that God (any god, not just the God of the Christian faith, for that matter) bestows any of our rights. Could you share how and where you acquired this misconception?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  AlanJ
July 6, 2022 4:01 pm

The Constitution is *NOT* the only founding document we look to in order to establish our rights and our laws. The Magna Carta, John Locke’s Treatise on Government, and our own Declaration of Independence are just a few of the other soruces.

The Constitution is an enabling document for how out government is to operate. In most cases it places restrictions on what the three branches of government can do, it does *not* define our rights except in the Bill of Rights. If you read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention that is why the Bill of Rights exists, to keep the government’s hands off our basic rights.

If you want to protect the “right” to abortion then there *is* a way to do so. A statute passed by Congress is not going to be sufficient. Establishing a right that is to be protected from government interference requires an Amendment to the Constitution – passed by 2/3 majorities in Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the States.

Good luck on getting Abortion defined as a Constitutional Amendment! But you are welcome to campaign for it!

AlanJ
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 6, 2022 8:03 pm

Jim said above that the Constitution states that our rights come from God, and this is wrong. I do not care what other theories of government the founders subscribed to. They did not establish our country as a theocracy. The Bill of Rights also does not mention god or suggest that human rights are granted by a creator.

I agree with you that a Constitutional amendment is the only way to guarantee women a right to bodily autonomy that cannot be taken away from them, and I also agree that such an amendment is very unlikely given the current state of politics, the ingrained sexism, and outsized influence of religion in our country.

MarkW
Reply to  AlanJ
July 7, 2022 7:52 am

Another liberal who only sees what he’s been trained to see.

Jtom
Reply to  AlanJ
July 6, 2022 4:16 pm

Not the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence, and echoed in the writings of those who authored the Constitution. The Constitution does refer to God, though. Look at how it is dated: “In the Year of Our Lord.”

Jim G.
Reply to  AlanJ
July 6, 2022 7:03 pm

Alan, thank you for proving the point of the article.
You ignored my questions and took issue with something else.
So are you going to answer my questions or ignore them?

And if you think that the founders were not referring to the God of the Bible, that is only because you are unfamiliar with its text.
One of the most referred to quotes is the reference to a “city on a hill”. Which can be found in Mattew 5. Lincoln also referenced these verses in the Gettysburg address. Franklin made numerous quotes, if you can recognize them.

AlanJ
Reply to  Jim G.
July 6, 2022 8:13 pm

That the founders were religious men is not in dispute. What I dispute is the notion that they established our nation as a theocracy.

I don’t have any interest in answering your questions, which were not directed at me, just in pointing out your misconception. In general I think that Roe did the right thing but was not the right way to go about it and left women’s rights to bodily autonomy at risk of being stripped away, as we’ve just seen happen with the recent SC decision. A constitutional amendment is likely the only way women will ever be able to secure control of their own bodies in a way that can’t be easily revoked. It is very sad that the founders never thought to consider a need to articulate women’s rights in the constitution to begin with.

MarkW
Reply to  AlanJ
July 7, 2022 7:54 am

Nobody has claimed that the founders intended this country to be a theocracy. The fact that you believe others to be making this claim just shows how deeply entrenched your own indoctrination has become.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 5:08 pm

He’s apparently never read the 1st Amendment!

Sal Minella
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 7:14 am

I see that you threw “Republican” in as a negative. I guess that makes you a “Democrat”, according to Charles Hurt: “Someone who can wear a mask on your face for two years but can’t keep a condom on for 48 seconds.”.

David Elstrom
Reply to  MarkW
July 5, 2022 4:32 pm

Mark W—Yes. Anyone who knows anything about (unalienable) natural rights and how it fits into AMERICAN political thought, knows that our unalienable rights cannot include abortion. The “right” to abortion is a product of the foreign ideology called Progressivism (among other misleading labels) which consists of a perverse union of both fascistic and Marxist ideology. Abortion is no more a “right” than the “right” to vote for slavery—advocated by pre-Civil War Democrats under the label “Popular Sovereignty.” Both are examples of the end justifies the means (or might makes right) thinking that America’s Founders specifically rejected.

Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 10:34 am

What’s needed is common sense birth control laws.

MarkW
Reply to  Edward Dooner
July 7, 2022 4:56 pm

Who’s common sense?

Bryan A
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 2:56 pm

Up until 1865 Slavery had also “Always been a part of human life and society”

JMurphy
Reply to  Bryan A
July 5, 2022 3:16 pm

Part of the life of the ruling classes, who were able to determine how others should live and die. Ordinary people were the ones becoming slaves and being deprived of their freedoms, just as they continue to be.

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 3:25 pm

It wasn’t just the ruling class that owned slaves. If you think that people should be permitted to kill those who have become inconvenient, then you are much more like those “ruling classes” than you are capable of admitting.

paul courtney
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 5:36 pm

Mr. Murphy: Thanks for talking long enough to show yourself. Bryan A. crushed you, and you were fool enough to give yourself away.

Dave Fair
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 7:07 pm

OMG, Murph, you are truly blinded by ideology:

1) Who voted for your “ruling classes?” Could it be that we live in a democratic republic? You will probably see the “ruling classes” getting their butts kicked in November.

2) Your “ordinary people” which are “becoming slaves” and “deprived of their freedoms” have the right to vote for their representatives in government and to also change their Constitution in order to protect their rights and freedoms as they collectively see fit.

Bryan A
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 10:13 pm

In this case, those ruling classes were the Masters in the Democrat southern states

Redge
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 11:38 pm

Learn some history.

Yes, slavery, especially in the modern age, is abhorrent, but black Africans also profited from transportation of black people

And slavery still exists

JMurphy
Reply to  Redge
July 6, 2022 4:12 am

Why do you wish to bring up and highlight “black Africans”? Something on your mind?

Tring to Play Nice
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 5:43 am

Because idiots like you pretend that the US was the only country to ever have slavery and only Americans captured and sold slaves. The truth is that the US imported relatively few slaves compared to other nations and they were overwhelmingly oringinally enslaved by black Africans. The large number of slaves in the US was because they were not worked to death and had children and families.

Sal Minella
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 7:31 am

You Democrats haven’t been this angry since Lincoln freed your slaves.

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:08 am

And once again, the leftists demonstrates how to change the subject when it falls behind in an argument.

Redge
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 10:17 am

Why do you wish to bring up and highlight “black Africans”?

Because people like you refuse to acknowledge the role of black people in this abhorrent trade in people

MarkW
Reply to  Redge
July 6, 2022 8:01 pm

In the US, it was possible for a free black to buy black slaves.
And some did.

2hotel9
Reply to  Bryan A
July 5, 2022 4:51 pm

And it still is.

amirlach
Reply to  Bryan A
July 5, 2022 5:07 pm

It sort of still is.

beng135
Reply to  Bryan A
July 6, 2022 7:27 am

Up until 1865 Slavery had also “Always been a part of human life and society”

It still is in some places.

Dkr
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 3:12 pm

You are a fool

waza
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 4:10 pm

JM
As an Australian, it is my understanding that Rud is highlighting there is a clear procedure for changing the “law” in the USA and it has successfully worked in the past.
The procedure is not dissimilar in Australia, and we have successfully changed our constitution seven times

JMurphy
Reply to  waza
July 6, 2022 4:13 am

Prohibition worked?

TonyG
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 7:55 am

21st Amendment

Last edited 1 month ago by TonyG
MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:10 am

Try reading the statement instead of just assuming.
Quite clearly, waza is saying that the method of changing the constitution worked.
Your desperation is becoming pathetic.

stinkerp
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 11:25 pm

when religious fervour and arrogance tries to tell the American people that they can’t do something which has always been a part of human life and society

Give us an example, please. I can’t think of one.

AndyHce
Reply to  stinkerp
July 6, 2022 1:47 am

It seemed quite clear that the subject was the prohibition of making, buying, selling, transporting, or possession of ethanol alcohol for consumption.

JMurphy
Reply to  stinkerp
July 6, 2022 4:22 am

Keep up – abortion. Always happened, always will; no matter what the religious fundamentalists pray for at night.

JMurphy
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 4:22 am

And prohibition, as referenced above.

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 9:12 am

Murder has always been a part of human society.
By your illogic, there should be no laws against murder, theft, etc.

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 8:04 pm

Historically, most societies banned abortion.

Tring to Play Nice
Reply to  stinkerp
July 6, 2022 5:44 am

I think a perfect example is the Green religion trying to force us to stop using fossil fuels.

Redge
Reply to  JMurphy
July 5, 2022 11:35 pm

… a step-back for America it is when religious fervour and arrogance tries to tell the American people that they can’t do something which has always been a part of human life and society

I agree

Please tell the Greens to lay off telling the rest of us how to live our lives

Alexander Vissers
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 5:46 am

The ruling only addresses federal competence based on the constitution. They pretty convincingly rules that the constitution does not attribute compentence to the federal gouvernment, hence the states can addopt laws to address the isseu.

JMurphy
Reply to  Alexander Vissers
July 6, 2022 10:30 am

Yes but the strange thing with all these references to the constitution and the competences of the various branches (federal, States, etc.) is that, just as in Roe v Wade, more liberal judges could rule the opposite way (as they did then) and everyone in America would agree or disagree as to the ruling’s legitimacy and correctness depending on whether they are Democrats or Republicans! The law is certainly not blind in America.

MarkW
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 11:32 am

You are correct that liberal judges would not have voted this way.
But just like you, none of the liberal judges base their arguments on the constitution. Instead they whine about how awful it is that some people have to bear the consequences of their actions.

Eric-ji
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 12:17 pm

It’s not religious fervor. Some are against abortion for religious reasons, true, but others for humanitarian reasons.

If you look dispassionately at what we citizens are allowed and not allowed to do, you’ll see the hand of ‘the state’ in everything. The ‘war on drugs’ here in the US is a good example. Who is the state to tell me I cannot put into my body what I want? Are the state’s prohibitions in this area religiously motivated? Or the prohibition of suicide. Why is it a crime to kill myself. It’s just me.

The abortion decision is less about telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body, and more about how the US government makes decisions. A handful of unelected men in Roe v. Wade invented the right to abortion. The current decision holds that was a flawed decision. Only a federal law, a Constitutional amendment, or individual state laws can address the right to abortion.

That is how government in the US is structured. Through laws, not fiats by unelected judges.

niceguy
Reply to  Eric-ji
July 6, 2022 7:37 pm

A handful of unelected men in Roe v. Wade invented the right to abortion”

Then the same people who defended that invention justified mandating the so called “COVID vaccine”.

niceguy
Reply to  JMurphy
July 6, 2022 6:34 pm

they can’t do something which has always been a part of human life and society”

What, taking some Plaquenil?
(hydroxychloroquine)

michel
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 5, 2022 1:56 pm

Yes, an excellent post, and it makes the very important point that the dissenting opinions are not opinions about the legal merits of the case. They are the kind of arguments that would be used in a legislative body when advocating passage of a measure. They have no bearing on what the law is.

They concern what the dissenters think the law should be, and they are evidently prepared to vote that it is what they think it should be, regardless of what it actually is. Well, without even considering what it really is. Maybe not even thinking that is a concept that makes any sense.

This is a manifestation of post-modernism. I used to think that post-modernism was the cause of the problem. But the more cases of this kind you come across, the clearer it becomes that the general adoption of post-modernism, of moral and epistemological relativism, is just a symptom and an effect of the underlying social crisis, not a cause of it.

Menton makes clear in these quotes and in his commentary how far progressivism has taken the legal system and made it a way of implementing policies chosen by the executive. The corollary of this is that arguments about the merits of a given policy are taking precedence, in a court and among a minority of judges, over whether its actually within the law as it stands. The law is not even considered. Its all about the merits of the policy.

Who cares what the law is? We are setting national policy here.

Its the profoundly anti-democratic heart of progressivism. What counts is the end, stop bothering me with talk about you don’t like the means.

I am afraid it is an analogous development to the loss of faith of the nomenklatura in the former Soviet Union. Its a loss of belief and commitment to what used to be the basic values of the society. Its not a good omen.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 5, 2022 2:54 pm

Remember 1860 – 1865, It took a War and a Republican President to end Slavery in the Democratic southern states and free all men.

Reply to  Bryan A
July 5, 2022 4:22 pm

Remember that not one other nation in the world required a civil war to end slavery. Only the US. Which means Abe Lincoln was, by far, the worst President in American history. 700,000 Americans killed each other while he was President. It doesn’t get much worse than that.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 5, 2022 4:47 pm

Agree. For those who are inclined to disagree, please note that chattel slavery had been part of the human condition for millennia. And while the philosophy of the Enlightenment may have damned slavery, it was the free market philosophy of classical liberalism, i.e., capitalism, that effectively doomed it.

paul courtney
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 5, 2022 5:49 pm

Mr NoVA: The premise is wrong. The American Civil War was to preserve the union, not to free the slaves (which, obviously, happened) If Lincoln had made the war about slavery, white farmers from So. Ohio, IN, Ill would not have fought. Don’t let Mr. Greene misinform you.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  paul courtney
July 5, 2022 6:20 pm

‘Don’t let Mr. Greene misinform you.’

Thanks for the tip. And thanks for being astute enough to realize that the ‘civil war’ was not initiated to eliminate slavery, but to return those sovereign states by force that had exercised their right to secede from a voluntary union that had become hostile to them.

Kemaris
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 5, 2022 7:36 pm

There was no such right. The Democrats went to war to preserve slavery.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Kemaris
July 5, 2022 8:56 pm

‘There was no such right.’

The Articles of Confederation were formally adopted by the thirteen states by 1781. Thirteen separate peace treaties, one for each state, were signed by Great Britain in 1783. And each of the thirteen states ratified the Constitution between 1787 and 1790. Please advise in which of these documents any state noted that it was no longer a sovereign entity.

‘The Democrats went to war to preserve slavery.’

The Republicans went to war to preserve their tariff revenue.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 8, 2022 9:03 am

There is no right to secede in the Constitution. There is still no case law on secession, although since treason and sedition are dealt with in the Constitution there is an arguable presumption against it. The irony is that if the secessionists had declared the dissolution and then pushed it up through the court system, they might have won, seeing as how 5 of the justices were southerners.

MarkW
Reply to  Kemaris
July 5, 2022 9:37 pm

All powers and rights not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.

Unless you can find something in the constitution requiring states to stay in forever, then just as they joined voluntarily, they can leave voluntarily.

AndyHce
Reply to  Kemaris
July 6, 2022 1:57 am

The slavery issue was brought into the war by the northern administration when it became necessary to engender more support from the northern population for the war.

Jtom
Reply to  Kemaris
July 6, 2022 4:27 pm

Ever wonder why Lincoln did not sue the seceding states and have the judicial system determine if they had a legal right to leave? After all, it is purely a legal question. He didn’t because he knew he would lose in the Supreme Court.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Jtom
July 8, 2022 9:04 am

That is certainly possible. See my reply to Frank.

paul courtney
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 4:07 am

Mr. NoVA: I agree with your last point, the Constitution didn’t have any provision for leaving. Lincoln (with political support that overwhelmed northern dems who wanted to let the south go) chose to use force to keep them. Letting them go is absolutely defensible as a legitimate political view, rendered purely academic by events.

paul courtney
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 5, 2022 5:46 pm

Mr. Greene: You couldn’t be more wrong. What was the highest priority of the incoming exec. in March 1861? His legal duty was to preserve the union, whether it was Abe or another guy. SC had already seceded, right? The Chief exec had to say no to secession to preserve the country. And Lincoln did it. Freeing the slaves was part of it, but you must admit he did the highest (and most difficult) priority at the time. You sometimes say intelligent things, not this time. Lincoln was one of the best, saying he was the worst is just gaslighting. The war was to preserve the union.

AndyHce
Reply to  paul courtney
July 6, 2022 2:02 am

There existed no such legal duty. Lincoln, and to no small extent his cabinet, preserved the union and largely destroyed the constitution. The 14th amendment, NOT ratified by the states under constitutional provisions, completed the processes.

paul courtney
Reply to  AndyHce
July 6, 2022 4:12 am

Mr. Hce: The leader of an organization has no duty to keep it going?! A leader chosen by the constitutional election process? The civil war did create the opportunity for the federal gov’t to become the behemoth it is today, but I don’t see how that can be put to Lincoln. He faced a choice put to him by the south, and he chose to do his job. Simple. Greene is wrong.

MarkW
Reply to  paul courtney
July 6, 2022 9:17 am

If one of your business partners decides he no longer wishes to associate with your company, the CEO has a duty to use force to keep that partner from leaving?

The south leaving did not “end” the United States, it just made it smaller.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 12:57 pm

Mr.W.: I don’t think the partnership analogy works, most “partnerships” are not legal organizations separate from the partners (I can only say this for certain in my home state). The Constitution isn’t like a partnership in a fundamental way- it created an entity separate from the states.
But I admit this is all academic. Lincoln and many others saw the Exec job duties to include preserving the entity the states created, and not allow a state to unilaterally undo it. He did it. He was re-elected! If precedent matters, then Lincoln set a legal precedent. In other words, he was the president of South Carolina, too. He was president of Missouri, and he showed them.
You say a “smaller” U.S., assuming the brits, french or spanish allowed the rump south to exist (I think the brits would have taken the south by, say, 1900), what side does the NUS support in WWI? The SUS? What if the SUS supported Germany? As I say, all academic. In any event, I won’t let Mr. Greene’s libel stand.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  paul courtney
July 6, 2022 1:14 pm

‘You say a “smaller” U.S., assuming the brits, french or spanish allowed the rump south to exist (I think the brits would have taken the south by, say, 1900),…’

The ‘brits’ outlawed slavery in their Caribbean possessions in 1834, so maybe that would have been a good thing. They didn’t kill 700,000 people to do it either.

paul courtney
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 1:57 pm

Mr. NoVA: Yes, the brits did, but I don’t know the population of those places back then, probably weren’t 70,000 to kill. If the brits decided to invade the south after the north let secession hold, and end slavery in the crown’s newest colony, how many dead then? The brits would have been merciless, but Sherman and Grant set the bar pretty….. high?

MarkW
Reply to  paul courtney
July 6, 2022 8:19 pm

Why do you assume the southern and northern states would not have co-operated to expel the British?
Both sides would have to have known that once Britain finished swallowing one, it would then go after the other.
Beyond that, France and the other major powers would not want Britain to get stronger, so they likely would have intervened to support whoever Britain was attacking.

In the years since 1812, the US had gotten a lot bigger and a lot wealthier. Either the north or the south would have been a tough nut to crack.

Another way to look at it. After the US had completely torn itself apart by fighting the Civil War, 700,000 young men dead, the economy of the south devastated. That would have been the perfect time for Britain to have attacked. The US wasn’t in a shape to fight anyone.

MarkW
Reply to  paul courtney
July 6, 2022 8:10 pm

A partnership is an entity that exists independent of those who are members of the partnership. It continues to exist if a few of the partners leave.
The US would have continued to exist had the southern states left.

After a peaceful separation, there’s a pretty good chance that the South would have helped the US if the British were to attack. They would have known that Britain would come for them next.

For that matter, France wouldn’t want Britain to get it’s colonies back, so there’s a chance they would have intervened.

If the southern states had been allowed to split, there’s a good chance that neither side would have gotten involved in WWI.
Had that happened, there’s a good chance that there never would have been a WWII.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 9:08 am

The agreements between private parties subject to the laws of a sovereign jurisdiction are fundamentally different from the agreements between sovereign jurisdictions.

MarkW
Reply to  AndyHce
July 6, 2022 9:15 am

The southern states were forced to apply to re-join the union.
That would not have been necessary had they not already left the union.

paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 2:04 pm

Mr. W: Yes, though it may have played differently had Lincoln served out his term. I recall learning about how the reconstruction congress ran things after he was killed. Lincoln was a great lawyer, and would have argued that the readmission was EXACTLY WRONG because that acknowledges they left. Better to avoid that, Abe would have seen this quite clearly, and he would have had political strength in spades at that point. I say this mistake cannot be put to Lincoln, and can’t be used to judge him (best or worst).

MarkW
Reply to  paul courtney
July 6, 2022 8:24 pm

Another point is that the US did nothing even after most of the southern states had seceded. Hostilities didn’t start until after Fort Sumter was fired on. After that, the war was sold as a response to southern aggression.

From the southern point of view Fort Sumter was in their territory and its occupation by the north was illegal.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 6:49 am

Likewise, the Constitution forbids using the army against citizens. Lincoln sending Union troops into southern states was an admission that they were no longer citizens of the US.
The Constitution does authorize use of troops to counter an insurrection, but southern states had not tried to overthrow the Federal government.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 5, 2022 7:27 pm

Richard, you seem to forget that the U.S. is a Republic. Some members wanted one fundamental State governmental right (slavery) and other States (richer and more powerful and having larger populations) disagreed. The stronger States began to use their greater power to dictate to the weaker members increasingly over time. The weaker States chose to separate from the Union rather than submit.

President Lincoln led the larger States in a successful attempt (Civil War) to keep the dissenting States from separating from the Union. He is considered to be one of the better Presidents for holding the Union together.

No significant achievement in history is without casualties. Screw off, Troll.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 5, 2022 8:19 pm

‘The stronger States began to use their greater power to dictate to the weaker members increasingly over time. The weaker States chose to separate from the Union rather than submit.’

So, if the more powerful states (CA, NY, IL, etc.) decided to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the US on the basis of junk science it would just be tough titties for the rest of us? Really?

The point is that as abhorrent as slavery was, it was ‘Constitutional’ and should have been Constitutionally abolished without bloodshed, and at a fraction of the cost of the war that ensued.

michel
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 4:58 am

This is confused. The answer to the first question is yes:

So, if the more powerful states (CA, NY, IL, etc.) decided to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the US on the basis of junk science it would just be tough titties for the rest of us? Really?

Yes, if they can get it legally enacted.

Could the dissenting states then secede? Well, it didn’t go too well last time! I don’t think so.

Then you go on to say that slavery was Constitutional and should have been Constitutionally abolished.

This is a non-sequitur. Many things that are permitted in the Constitution can be changed or regulated by primary legislation. The Constitution permitted slavery by omission of outlawing it, but this does not affect the fact that it could be abolished by primary legislation. It was an excellent idea to abolish it constitutionally, it meant there were greater safeguards against its return, but it was not legally necessary to outlawing it..

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  michel
July 6, 2022 5:29 am

You should take some time to read the Constitution. Another suggestion is that when you write something like this:

‘The Constitution permitted [slavery] by omission of outlawing it,…’,

you should check it for reasonableness by substituting other [bad things, e.g., murder, cannibalism, etc.] to see if it still makes sense to you.

Btw, I’m not a fan of secession, mainly because, as we’ve seen here and elsewhere, there’s a high likelihood that your former partners will resort to force. The best strategy, whenever the Federal government goes rogue, is state ‘nullification’ of non-constitutional laws and/or regulations.

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank from NoVA
Dave Fair
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 8:28 am

Frank, you are not even wrong. Clarifying your misapprehensions would take a book.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 9:18 am

In other words, I disagree with you, but can’t say why.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 10:30 am

Dave, I have only one ‘hot button’ issue, which is opposing the Federal government’s overreach into our lives. There are many examples of this, but CAGW, and its attendant policy impacts, is the one that brings me to this site. I understand that a lot of people believe that Lincoln was the greatest thing that ever happened to the US, but as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, his debasement of the Constitution green-lighted most, if not all, of the Federal abuses that have occurred since.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 1:54 pm

Frank, Abraham Lincoln is dead and gone. He effectively did what he felt needed to be done to respond to an existential threat to the United States in its early history. The Constitution, Constitutional law and jurisprudence in general have evolved far beyond that of those wartime years. His actions in no way “green-lighted” the modern authoritarian state and they are not used in current jurisprudence as precedents to justify the Deep State’s modern un-Constitutional actions.

Why don’t you just thank whatever God(s) you pray to (if any) that we have a current Supreme Court that recognizes the limitations of the Constitution on Executive overreach. CAGW is simply a fleeting issue in the grand sweep of the ongoing struggle for individual freedom in a collectivist-leaning world.

Semper vigilis. Better yet, as Baron de Ramsey said (Lord de Ramsey, House of Lords, 21 January 1998): “Semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat.” [We’re always in the manure; only the depth varies.]

TonyG
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 10, 2022 9:20 am

“his debasement of the Constitution green-lighted most, if not all, of the Federal abuses that have occurred since.”

I’m always reminded of what NIck Cage said in National Treasure, that before Lincoln we said “THESE United States” and after we said “THE United States”. That’s not necessarily good.

michel
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 10:41 am

It still does make sense. There are many things that are not made unlawful by being forbidden in the Constitution. They are made unlawful by primary legislation passed by Congress.

Homicide is an example. It is not criminal because the Constitution makes it so, but because of primary legislation which provides for the different levels and penalties.

There was no requirement for a Constitutional amendment to make slavery unlawful in the US. It could have equally been done by primary legislation. Such primary legislation would not have breached the Constitution.

You will search in vain for slavery or race being mentioned or provided for in the Constitution.

It was however very wise to do it by Constitutional amendment, since that made it much more permanent than legislation which can be changed by the legislature at will.

On the first point, Federal law could indeed close down the use of fossil fuels anywhere in the US. And there would be no recourse for a dissenting state other than getting a repeal through Congress or seceding.

Guns are different. Arms are mentioned in the Constitution, which gives rise to the present situation and to limits on what primary legislation either at State or Federal level can do.

Abortion is another issue which (since the latest USC decision) evidently isn’t covered by the Constitution, but can be covered by primary legislation either at State or Federal level.

I don’t know what State nullification is. States cannot simply refuse to accept Federal law. As became clear during the civil rights movement of the last century.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  michel
July 6, 2022 11:53 am

‘I don’t know what State nullification is. States cannot simply refuse to accept Federal law. As became clear during the civil rights movement of the last century.’

A state CAN refuse to enforce, i.e., nullify, any Federal law that is NOT passed ‘pursuant to the Constitution’. Since the Civil Rights legislation of the last century WAS passed pursuant to the Constitution, the states could not refuse to enforce it. See the difference?

Jtom
Reply to  michel
July 6, 2022 4:42 pm

The Constitution explicitly tells Congress what areas they can make laws on. There is no power given to Congress which they could us to justify a law against slavery in the existing states. The Constitution would never have been passed if that power were given. Congress only had the right to set conditions for new states to join the union, and could require no slavery in new states. That is precisely why Constitutional Amendments were required to end slavery throughout the original states.

Tring to Play Nice
Reply to  michel
July 6, 2022 5:59 am

The Founders provided an opening for ending slavery but knew they had to keep it available to get the Constitution ratified. Article I, Section 9 states that there can be no ban on importing slaves before 1808. They kicked the can down the road to let the next generation deal with the issue.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 8:18 am

The conception of States’ rights in the early Republic was entirely different from today’s and there have been intervening Constitutional Amendments to clarify the issues. What you or I think today has no bearing on what “should” have been done in immutable history, Frank.

As long as the Supreme Court (5 of 9 people, unless the Democrat Party majority packs the Court with radical Leftists) deems that any laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are in accordance with the restrictions placed on Federal government actions by the Constitution, a majority (under existing rules sometimes a supermajority is required, but those rules can be changed by a simple majority of the Senate – e.g. getting rid of the filibuster) of Congress and the President can do what they collectively want.

As designed by our Constitutional Founders, if people don’t like what the government at various levels have done they can vote them out of power. It is frustrating, however, to be in a political minority. Life ain’t fair.

Currently, the system is working as intended: Congress is thwarting radical, politicized Executive Branch schemes because of the inertia of a bicameral Congressional system. A frustrated Leftist Executive Branch is attempting to bypass Congress’s lack of action by usurping Congress’s prerogatives. Congress (lacking a supermajority to overcome a Presidential veto) wasn’t able to slap them down so the courts have done so with respect with the EPA’s unconstitutional actions. Its a minor win for the rationalist faction.

michel
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 10:44 am

Yes, this is correct, especially the last para. Its worth reading the history of Progressivism, to get an insight into the role of different views of the Constitution and how they have been used in US political struggles in the 20c.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 12:20 pm

‘As long as the Supreme Court…deems that any laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are in accordance with the restrictions placed on Federal government actions by the Constitution, a majority…of Congress and the President can do what they collectively want.’

So what safeguard(s) exist in the case where progressive-dominated Executive and Legislative branches cook up and pass a blatantly coercive and unconstitutional version of the Green New Deal, and a progressive dominated Supreme Court then ‘deems’ that it’s A-OK with them?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 2:08 pm

Frank, in your hypothetical case you and your likeminded fellow citizens better have alot of ammo stashed. Otherwise, suck it up because you lost.

Jtom
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 4:46 pm

Elections. The people are the final check-and-balance.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 5, 2022 9:39 pm

Good to know that you support the theory of might makes right.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 8:37 am

Cute, Mark. I’m reminded of Stalin’s question: “How many divisions does the Pope have?” 70 years of might making right is a long time.

You really should spend more time misinterpreting what I write.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 9:20 am

You stated that whatever the majority wants is by definition justified and if you don’t like it. Tough.

That’s might makes right dressed up for a party.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 9:44 am

Mark, that is not what I said. In summary, if what the majority wants is in accordance with our Constitution then they win. Get over it. You don’t get to determine what the Constitution means.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 11:36 am

Once again, as long as I have more power than you do, I get to tell you what to do. And you believe this to be a good thing.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 2:03 pm

Mark, neither “I” nor “you” have anything to do with it. It is the legitimate (under the Constitution) collective will of the citizens of our Constitutional Republic and its sovereign States that determines their course on any given subject. Win some, lose some: Again, get over it.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 8:27 pm

Under the constitution there are many things government is not permitted to do, regardless of how many people want to do it.
The idea that whatever the majority wants is justified is nothing more than might makes right in different words.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 10:00 am

Mark, you obviously have reading comprehension difficulties. Goodbye.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 7, 2022 4:57 pm

Dave, you obviously have problems speaking honestly, you won’t be missed.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 12:29 pm

‘You don’t get to determine what the Constitution means.’

I hope you don’t believe that the Supreme Court has a monopoly on this function. Otherwise it would be rather pointless for the states to sue the Federal government, which if I recall correctly, WVa just successfully did.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 4:10 pm

This comment is nonsensical, Frank. What are you trying to get at?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 7, 2022 4:45 pm

That’s why it takes a 2/3 majority and a 3/4 majority of states to create a Constitutional Amendment. That is not the same thing as a majority ruling, it is a super-majority.

AndyHce
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 6, 2022 2:05 am

The effort to secede had nothing to do with buying, selling, owning, or using slaves. It was about control and taxation (which is, to a large extent, control) of trade.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AndyHce
July 6, 2022 8:39 am

Andy, thanks for your misinterpretation of history.

David Elstrom
Reply to  Bryan A
July 5, 2022 4:37 pm

And to destroy the evil Northern Democrat doctrine of Popular Sovereignty.

2hotel9
Reply to  Bryan A
July 5, 2022 4:53 pm

Yep. And he personally hated black people. Did it anyway.

Tring to Play Nice
Reply to  2hotel9
July 6, 2022 6:00 am

What is your source for that statement?

2hotel9
Reply to  Tring to Play Nice
July 6, 2022 6:02 am

Lincoln’s own written words.

MarkW
Reply to  2hotel9
July 6, 2022 11:38 am

I don’t recall him writing that he hated blacks.
I do recall him writing that he had no issues with slavery itself and that he did not believe that blacks were capable of integrating with the rest of society.

AndyHce
Reply to  Bryan A
July 6, 2022 1:53 am

anti-slavery was the propaganda to convince the northern population to support the subjugation of the states that chose to exercise the then well understood right to withdraw from the union.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AndyHce
July 6, 2022 8:42 am

Andy, again, thank you for your simplistic misinterpretation of history.

paul courtney
Reply to  AndyHce
July 6, 2022 2:25 pm

Mr. Hce: Not even wrong. Some in the north were abolitionists and called for war to end slavery, but that was not happening prior to secession, they didn’t have the votes and whites in southern Ohio, IN, ILL and KY (did not secede, right?) may have fought with confederates in a war to end slavery. AFter secession, those whites would fight for the union, not to end slavery. Lincoln was smart about common folks in those areas (he grew up here) and he made damn sure NOT to say the war was to free slaves until Jan. 1, 1863 or so. He knew that many folks in the north would not fight to end slavery. Very few folks consider this point.
I am happy to pass along what I learned from a couple of history profs who were published in the field (way back when profs didn’t make you buy their book!).

Jtom
Reply to  paul courtney
July 6, 2022 5:05 pm

Add to that, many if not most in the South did NOT fight to protect slavery. They fought because their state asked them to. Love of state was equal to or greater than love of country back then. They fought because their state was under attack (with the exception of Gettysburg every major battle was in a Southern state). And they fought because their own homes and families were under attack.

The North was fighting for this principle or that cause, but Southerners were fighting for their lives.

MarkW
Reply to  Jtom
July 6, 2022 8:30 pm

Only a tiny fraction of southernors owned slaves.

MarkW
Reply to  paul courtney
July 6, 2022 8:30 pm

Even after secession Lincoln did not have the support to go to war. It wasn’t until after Fort Sumter was fired on, was Lincoln able to swing enough support behind his war.

paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 6:49 am

Mr. W: I agree, and earlier was imprecise to say “secession” was the trigger point. Lincoln ran on keeping the union, and when he won southern states announced secession before he was sworn in. Lame duck (Polk, I think) refused to do anything, Lincoln wanted to end a rebellion right away (he refused to recognize secession and likely stopped any congressional attempt to vote to let them go), but the war group didn’t have the votes then. Ft Sumpter changed that. You can say “his war”, I won’t bark at that, but I don’t agree, he had alot of support for his position.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  paul courtney
July 8, 2022 9:15 am

More to the point, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in those states that were in rebellion. It was an attempt to damage the South economically. Tough luck if you were a slave in New Jersey. You had to wait until the 13th amendment got passed.

niceguy
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 6, 2022 6:33 pm

At least AOC proposed something logically consistent and appropriate: let’s make abortion an explicit constitutional right via an amendment.
That would stop the nonsense about “due process”.
OTOH the many sincere American who truly believe “my body my choice” would push just that instead.

The unitary mainstream left (*) has been vociferous on “my body my choice” as it applies to “reproductive care” and “gender” but they have none of it when it comes to freedom from a vaccine intended to change your immune system FOREVER (not that the establishment right was ever consistent on the topic either), or even taking one of the most common and used worldwide drug, hydroxychloroquine.

(*) as represented by the twitter attractor accounts, the ones which you stumble upon each and every day when you click on one or at most three links, so you feel attracted by those when browsing the American twittosphere (**):

Insane promoted like crazy twitter accounts
David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) / Twitter

Don Winslow (@donwinslow) / Twitter

Stonekettle (@Stonekettle) / Twitter

NoelCaslerComedy (@caslernoel) / Twitter

George Hahn (@georgehahn) / Twitter

Jon Cooper 🇺🇸 (@joncoopertweets) / Twitter

Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) / Twitter

Jim Stewartson, Antifascist, #RIPQ 🇺🇸🏴‍☠️ (@jimstewartson) / Twitter

Jeff Tiedrich (@itsJeffTiedrich) / Twitter

Angry Staffer (@Angry_Staffer) / Twitter

Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) / Twitter

Barbara Malmet (@B52Malmet) / Twitter

Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) / Twitter

Chip Franklin🏛InsideTheBeltway.com (@chipfranklin) / Twitter

BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) / Twitter

Southern Sister Resister – Wordsmith #IAmTheStorm (@ResisterSis20) / Twitter

Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) / Twitter

Tea Pain (@TeaPainUSA) / Twitter

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) / Twitter

Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D (@RVAwonk) / Twitter

Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) / Twitter

Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) / Twitter

Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) / Twitter

John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) / Twitter

Duty To Warn 🔉 (@duty2warn) / Twitter

Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) / Twitter

Jill Wine-Banks (@JillWineBanks) / Twitter

Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) / Twitter

Aaron Parnas (@AaronParnas) / Twitter

Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) / Twitter

Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) / Twitter

Daniel Uhlfelder (@DWUhlfelderLaw) / Twitter

Grant Stern is fully vaccinated (@grantstern) / Twitter

Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) / Twitter

ReallyAmerican.com 🇺🇸 (@ReallyAmerican1) / Twitter

Andrea Junker (@Strandjunker) / Twitter

Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) / Twitter

CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) / Twitter

🖕🏻Aunt Crabby Calls Bullshit 🖕🏻 (@DearAuntCrabby) / Twitter

Kyla In The Burgh 🏳️‍🌈🏴‍☠️ (@KylaInTheBurgh) / Twitter

Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) / Twitter

Robert Reich (@RBReich) / Twitter

Cole (@cole_hartigan) / Twitter

Ricky Davila (@TheRickyDavila) / Twitter

Colin Martin (@NotGbo) / Twitter

Frank Figliuzzi (@FrankFigliuzzi1) / Twitter

The USA Singers (@TheUSASingers) / Twitter

Steven Beschloss (@StevenBeschloss) / Twitter

Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) / Twitter

Emily Winston (@Emywinst) / Twitter

TheSadTruth💙 (@ReportsDaNews) / Twitter

TG (@TG22110) / Twitter

Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers) / Twitter

Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) / Twitter

Jo (@JoJoFromJerz) / Twitter

Scott Dworkin (@funder) / Twitter

Ari Berman (@AriBerman) / Twitter

Jennifer ‘pro-voting’ Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) / Twitter

Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) / Twitter

Tim O’Brien (@TimOBrien) / Twitter

Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) / Twitter

John Collins (@Logically_JC) / Twitter

(((DeanObeidallah))) (@DeanObeidallah) / Twitter

Cheri Jacobus (@CheriJacobus) / Twitter

Tomi Ahonen 15 Counts of Petite Larceny Witch Hunt (@tomiahonen) / Twitter

MeidasTouch.com (@MeidasTouch) / Twitter

VoteVets (@votevets) / Twitter

Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) / Twitter

Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) / Twitter

Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) / Twitter

The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) / Twitter

Bill Pascrell, Jr. (@BillPascrell) / Twitter

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff (@SWinstonWolkoff) / Twitter

Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) / Twitter

Olga Lautman (@OlgaNYC1211) / Twitter

Greg Olear (@gregolear) / Twitter

Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) / Twitter

Avenger Resister (@AvengerResister) / Twitter

Soledad O’Brien (@soledadobrien) / Twitter

Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) / Twitter

Daniel Dale (@ddale8) / Twitter

PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) / Twitter

Luke Zaleski (@ZaleskiLuke) / Twitter

Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) / Twitter

Badd Company (@BaddCompani) / Twitter

Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) / Twitter

Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) / Twitter

Mary L Trump (@MaryLTrump) / Twitter

Kurt Bardella (@kurtbardella) / Twitter

Amy Siskind 🏳️‍🌈 (@Amy_Siskind) / Twitter

Michael Harriot (@michaelharriot) / Twitter

Travis Allen 🇺🇸 (@TravisAllen02) / Twitter

Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) / Twitter

Sam Stein (@samstein) / Twitter

Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) / Twitter

Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) / Twitter

Andy Behrman (@electroboyusa) / Twitter

David Weissman (@davidmweissman) / Twitter

Khashoggi’s Ghost (@UROCKlive1) / Twitter

Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) / Twitter

Henry M. Rosenberg (@DoctorHenryCT) / Twitter

John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) / Twitter

Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg (@TheRaDR) / Twitter

Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) / Twitter

Barbara Lee (@Barbara84858692) / Twitter

Palmer Report (@PalmerReport) / Twitter

These accounts are lame, don’t ever break anything newsworthy, repeat inane talking point. It’s like a zoo.

At least “Jus de légumes” (vegetables juice) @JuddLegum is sometimes funny in it’s ineptness. Most are just odious. Many are lawyers and some former FBI; some lawyers had official federal responsibilities and even as a random French citizen I know they legal takes are pathetic.

In fact the most odious and inept legal takes on tweeter are from former FBI, former fed attorney, former JAG.

  • I know “former” can mean “got their sorry a*s expelled” but somehow I don’t count on it.
  • Even if so, what that tells us about those clowns being recruited in the first place?

Most noticeable: I see waves of some of these accounts coming up constantly then some others. But my pseudo random walks are the same. So what changed?

(**) and no, I have never – not ever – seen anything like those in France; it seems specifically American and hence 100% artificial.

Steve Case
July 5, 2022 10:38 am

Of the three decisions discussed, the one likely to have the most far-reaching impact is West Virginia.
_____________________________________________________________

Yes indeed, the other two issues might affect some people at some time, but the climate agenda is on track to affect everyone and very soon.

On edit maybe that’s a misinterpretation of what Francis Menton means, but had the court ruled the other way, we would all be headed toward dealing without the enjoyment of coal oil gas and nuclear power.

Posted yesterday here at WUWT:

There is no way that leftist “leaders” don’t know exactly what dire effects their anti-fuel actions are having on ordinary citizens’ standards of living.

Ergo, it has to be deliberate malice.

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve Case
Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Case
July 5, 2022 11:06 am

Absolutely…the Climate AGENDA will affect many people far sooner and far more negatively than the Changing Climate ever will

Fraizer
Reply to  Bryan A
July 5, 2022 2:20 pm

I wish that corporate America would grow a pair and simply state that they see no potential delirious effects on their business from climate change but severe possible effects from overreaching government regulation in the name of climate change. Something they have no control over.

Let the SEC put that on their pipe and smoke it (as opposed to the other stuff they are obviously smoking).

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Fraizer
July 6, 2022 5:55 am

Would that corporate America would grow a pair! Unfortunately, many large corporations are joined at the hip to the Federal government, because they benefit from a heavy-handed regulatory environment that either suppresses potential competitors and/or subsidizes otherwise non-viable corporate activity. The only downside of this to the large corporations is that they always run the risk of becoming ‘politically incorrect’, at which time, the Federal government will either destroy them or fully harvest their revenues.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Steve Case
July 5, 2022 11:41 am

“. . .the climate agenda is on track to affect everyone and very soon.”

The climate agenda HAS BEEN affecting the majority of US residents—you can extend this to all peoples of the world if you wish—since the 1950’s when there was widespread Cold War discussion that setting off atomic bombs could usher in a new ice age due to a “nuclear winter” scenario.

In the early 1970’s, climate change emerged as a political issue and it largely started as a AGW/CAGM meme for average citizens with the first “Earth Day” in 1970.

Untold trillions of taxpayer $USD have been spent studying/debating/investigating (some of it scientifically, hah!) “the climate agenda” since the 1950’s . . . with the single major accomplishment to date having been the shifting of discussions from “global cooling” to “global warming”.

Fraizer
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 5, 2022 2:25 pm

IIRC, one of the leading propagandists of nuclear winter admitted that they made it up as a means to pressure nuclear disarmament.

Meab
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 6, 2022 8:32 am

While I agree with much of your post, you’re making stuff up again. The concept of nuclear winter was NOT discussed in the 1950s, it came about much later than that. Look up the history of the concept.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Steve Case
July 5, 2022 12:30 pm

I see that malice in the US as a direct result of Nobama’s being thwarted by drillers on his first try to
keep gas prices up, after he said we can’t drill our way out of high gas prices. To keep drillers from
ruining his plan & humiliating him again, he replaced Goldman Sachs with Blackrock cuz Fink would
help plan a way to hogtie the energy industry. (NEC’s chief Deese was in Nobama’s WH.) Schwab- you will own nothing. From THEIR words, they’re very serious about winning!

Comment: Old Man Winter July 5, 2022 1:49 am
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/04/climate-activist-hypocrisy-example-eleventy-gazillion/

Last edited 1 month ago by Old Man Winter
TonyG
Reply to  Steve Case
July 6, 2022 8:03 am

On edit maybe that’s a misinterpretation of what Francis Menton means,

I think he meant with regard to curtailing the bureaucratic state.

Rob_Dawg
July 5, 2022 10:41 am

Voting on “the science” is an oxymoron.

TEWS_Pilot
July 5, 2022 10:42 am

All three branches of the government have become like small creeks that empty into a pond with no re-circulation and very little replenishment. The pond becomes stagnant and toxic and dead and needs to be completely dredged and cleaned and perhaps re-routed so it does not again turn into the same SWAMP.

Rhoda R.
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
July 5, 2022 4:29 pm

It is no longer a swamp, it’s a cesspool.

amirlach
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
July 5, 2022 5:11 pm

More of an open sewer..

Vuk
July 5, 2022 10:44 am

If in doubt do as Brits do, follow precedent until peasants revolt. Question is how long BoJo can survive as his ministers are abandoning the no 10’s Pinocchio.
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
Bryan A
Reply to  Vuk
July 5, 2022 11:07 am

But his wife adores him 😉

Editor
Reply to  Bryan A
July 5, 2022 11:21 am

With a nose like that (referring to the Pinocchio pic), it doesn’t take much of imagination to understand why.

Regards,
Bob

MarkW
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 5, 2022 9:40 pm

A little on the thin side.

Tom Halla
July 5, 2022 10:59 am

What Clarence Thomas objects to, despite not having any other justices agreeing with him, is that the Slaughterhouse Cases were wrongly decided. This rather notorious piece of Counter-Reconstruction jurisprudence gutted the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, which was intended to make Federal civil rights protections directly enforceable against state laws.
For a clearer reading of this, read Thomas’ concurrence in McDonald v Chicago.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 5, 2022 12:01 pm

The US Constitution does, indeed, override any State provision, whether by Constitution or by statute. But ONLY where rights of citizens are ENUMERATED, or a function is EXPRESSLY reserved to the Federal Government.

There is no enumerated right to a job anywhere in the US Constitution.

Gordon A. Dressler
July 5, 2022 11:17 am

Actually, Francis Menton’s Vision 1 has a glaring omission in this statement that he provides in his article above:
“The Constitution allocates powers to the three branches of government, and also lists certain rights entitled to constitutional protection.”

The Constitution is a document that fundamentally limits the powers of government itself. It identifies those powers granted by “the people” (the citizens of the US):
— first, to the federal government,
— second, those powers not given to/claimed by the federal government can be passed to the individual states,
— lastly, but most importantly IMHO, those powers not given to/claimed by either federal or state governments are reserved to “the people”.

Within this broader context, it is true that the Constitution does specifically distribute power to the tripartite branches of our federal government.

However, our Constitution is both beautiful and remarkable in that it also gives the right of citizens, via our representative form of democracy, to enact laws (Constitutional amendments) that can override any previous laws enacted by the Administration and/or Legislative branches, and that can even override decisions/interpretations of previous laws by the Judicial branch.

The framers of the US Constitution were well aware of powers and dangers of governmental institutions, and intentionally wrote the document to limit such powers as much as practical, as well as to allow citizens to “update” the document when, and if, needed.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 5, 2022 11:28 am

Bingo! Exactly right.

william Johnston
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 5, 2022 11:47 am

Actually, the Constitution does not “give the right of citizens” to enact laws. It is a right retained by citizens and those rights are as enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Government has only as much power as allowed by the citizens. IMHO.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  william Johnston
July 5, 2022 12:51 pm

The Constitution specifically defines the requirements needed for citizens, via their representatives in the various States, to pass a Constitutional amendment. This right was one naturally reserved to/retained by the citizens, but the framers of the Constitution were smart enough to codify the process and not leave it up for debate.

So, in a very real sense the Constitution “gives” the right of Constitutional amendment via defining the two alternative processes required for such.

BTW, I never said that US citizens had a right “to enact laws” in the generally understood meaning of that phrase . . . it is their representatives in the legislative branch, Congress, that have that right. Similarly, US citizens themselves cannot amend the US Constitution . . it is (a) their representatives in Congress, OR (b) their representatives in State legislatures under a called constitution convention, that have that right.

Philip
July 5, 2022 11:47 am

I think the difference in vision is even more profound. It is that despite the founding of the United States of America as a republic, with a very limited role for the federal government, there is a big push to treat the USA as a single country, with a single government rather than 52 countries with independent governments.

We see the same problem evolving in the EU.

There is some advantage to allowing this to progress, within limits. The problem is that progressives ALWAYS go one step too far. They always push beyond reasonable limits.

Mostly, they get away with it. Because there is no way to stop them if they control the levers of power … except one. And until they push just too far, people are not willing to take that corrective step. The problem of trying to determine how far you can push before that wall breaks is that it is often some small, otherwise insignificant thing that finally pushes things over the edge.

The US federal government should be thankful to the Supreme Court for having pulled them back, at least a little from that catastrophic dam break.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Philip
July 5, 2022 1:30 pm

There are 50 states, not 52. There are several areas not part of a state: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Now in 2008, 0bummer said he’d been to 57 and there was one his staff couldn’t justify going to, so there should be two more that I can’t remember. 😂

Philip
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 5, 2022 3:02 pm

I know how many states there are … apparently my fingers or keyboard does not.
I didn’t notice until the edit timeout had expired (of course!).

Of course, when it was founded, it was not 50, it was 13. So I suppose I was wrong there too 🙂

I well remember Barry claiming to have visited 57. If only the current “president” cold restrict himself to funny little gaffs like that…

Last edited 1 month ago by Philip
Gunga Din
Reply to  Philip
July 6, 2022 9:00 am

But there are 57 states.
The extra 7 are on whatever planet The Squad came from.

Craig
July 5, 2022 11:52 am

Who is surprised by this? It’s nothing new.

H. D. Hoese
July 5, 2022 12:03 pm

I taught Environmental Assessment and Management and had a lawyer early in the practice lecture some, still have some notes. I had skimmed the ruling but what I found strange, originally seen in American Thinker, was the Kagan dissent pushing numerous times the 14th amendment. One example– “What rights did those “people” have in their heads at the time? But, of course, “people” did not ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. Men did.”

The 14th amendment does establish “male” rights having to do with “…..apportioned among the several states…”, but the 15th amendment clarifies the “…right of citizens…” to vote. May have missed the absence of 15, appendix had numbers 4 and 6.

Head of the EPA does not believe in the constitution either, wasn’t their original view. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-regan-issues-statement-west-virginia-v-environmental-protection

navy bob
July 5, 2022 12:05 pm

What I don’t understand is the practical effect of the decision. Are utilities, states, private entities now able to restart coal-fired power plants and build new ones? What remaining power does EPA have under the 2009 endangerment finding that CO2 is a pollutant? Can it still set and enforce CO2 emission limits? I assume there’s no economically practical way to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuels other than efficiency increases. (Also assume carbon capture and storage is impractical.) So can fossil-fuel users just thumb their noses at EPA? Or does EPA still have some CO2 enforcement authority remaining?

AWG
Reply to  navy bob
July 5, 2022 1:46 pm

I fear that the West Virginia verdict will be largely ignored since the junta has already stated their position that the Judicial Branch is illegitimate and the Regulatory Branch (circa FDR) has assured itself in top position in the New And Improved “American” Trinity.

“How many divisions has the Pope in battle”?

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  AWG
July 5, 2022 5:15 pm

“How many divisions has the Pope in battle”?

The EPA, like most of Federal agencies, relies heavily upon the machinery of the states to implement their edicts. Now that SCOTUS has ruled that the EPA has superseded its authority to curtail coal-fired power generation, the states are free, if they wish, to ignore the EPA’s edicts in this area. This is a classic example of how states can and should ‘nullify’ Federal laws that do not arise pursuant to the Constitution.

AndyHce
Reply to  AWG
July 6, 2022 2:20 am

The EPA has already been pushing on other fronts, such as the nonsense PM 2.5 restrictions. They can, and probably will, make up other hurdles so difficult to overcome that fire can be regulated out of existence without reference to CO2.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  navy bob
July 5, 2022 5:03 pm

I don’t think the ruling will have any affect on those states whose governments ‘are in the tank’ for CAGW. What this ruling does allow, however, is for those states that aren’t against the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity a legal ‘safe harbor’ to nullify the edicts of the EPA within their own jurisdictions.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  navy bob
July 5, 2022 5:04 pm

Bob,
there is no practical effect of the decision. The clean air plan was never put into effect and thus deciding that it is unconstitutional almost 10 years later will not make any difference.

And to be slightly more precise the part of the plan that was ruled unconstitutional was the part extending beyond the “fence line”. So the EPA still has the power to enforce CO2 reductions as long as it can be done within the boundaries of the power plants.

navy bob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 6, 2022 7:02 pm

David Wojick’s article points out the regulatory difficulties for EPA. If I understand him correctly, CO2 isn’t hazardous, or else we’d all be dead, so it can’t be regulated under toxic substances regulations. And local plants have no ambient air effect, since it’s global emissions that affect the ppm concentration, which is a global measurement, so ambient air standards can’t logically be enforced. (Not that logic is necessarily a consideration for EPA.) If EPA were to impose an ambient air maximum above the global concentration, it would have no effect. If it were lower than the global ppm, everyone would be in violation all the time. It’s a real kettle of fish.

griff
Reply to  navy bob
July 6, 2022 2:09 am

That is irrelevant, since US coal plants will continue to close

Jtom
Reply to  griff
July 6, 2022 5:16 pm

That will change. We are simply lagging behind Germany at the moment.

Old Man Winter
July 5, 2022 12:06 pm

In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms”

WRONG– they were killed by PEOPLE using firearms!

Scissor
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 5, 2022 12:32 pm

Yes and the Chinese red guard did away with millions using ropes and sticks. There’s a reason Antifa is less like the red guard than some might like them to be.

Dan
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 5, 2022 12:51 pm

And most of them were killed in cities that have been run by Progressive Democrats for decades and which have the most restrictive gun laws in the country, particularly with respect to concealed carry, and who, since 2020, have been de-funding their police departments. Furthermore, a much higher perecentage of those killed were black people killed by other black people, proving that the Democrats in power in those cities actually don’t care much about black people.

Come to think of it, the Democrat party was/is the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow laws, the party of public housing for minorities (aka housing segregation), the party of failed inner city schools and the party against school choice. I could go on…

2hotel9
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 5, 2022 5:02 pm

Guns don’t shoot themselves.

Tring to Play Nice
Reply to  2hotel9
July 6, 2022 6:09 am

Alec Baldwin diagrees with you.

2hotel9
Reply to  Tring to Play Nice
July 6, 2022 7:14 am

And he will buy his way out of going to prison for murder. It is the Democrat way.

MarkW
Reply to  2hotel9
July 6, 2022 11:44 am

I don’t believe he is guilty of murder as there is no evidence of an intent to kill.
There most definitely was reckless endangerment and probably manslaughter of some kind.

As the producer, it was his responsibility to hire an armorer who was properly trained and not over worked.
As the producer it was his responsibility to not let the crew use the same guns that were being used in the movie to do target practice with live rounds. There never should have been any live rounds on the set.
As the producer it was his responsibility to ensure that prior to shooting the scene to double check that the gun had been loaded with blanks, not live rounds.
As the actor who was actually holding the gun, it was also his responsibility to verify that the gun had been properly loaded.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
2hotel9
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 4:11 am

He shot her. Period. And he will buy his way out of being convicted of murder. Period. Intent is irrelevant. He did it, did it in front of multiple witnesses. He will buy his way out. It is the Democrat way.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2022 9:56 am

“As the actor who was actually holding the gun, it was also his responsibility to verify that the gun had been properly loaded.”

Would you believe that, according to all the various union production rules, actors are not permitted to do that?
(When I directed a short using a real gun, I absolutely made sure the actor knew to do that, and how to do so properly. That’s an idiotic rule at best)

Kemaris
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 5, 2022 7:39 pm

And a huge fraction of those people only killed themselves. I thought Democrats were in favor of a right to suicide.

niceguy
Reply to  Kemaris
July 6, 2022 7:15 pm

And many other countries have less firearms and people still find way to kill themselves.

And the instant suicide impulse argument does not work very well as people in some other countries kill themselves at incredibly high rates w/o guns.

Something anyone remotely concerned re: suicide would have known.
They either don’t know because they are utterly unconcerned, or don’t care, or want to disinform. Can I say fake news?

As promoted by the WaCompost:Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years
Fake news count of President Trump (the often quoted 30000 number) was about the false statements (a) AND misleading statements.

What could be more misleading than all these garbage gun statistics or gun classifications?

Even from the POV of a firearms know-nothing, it’s self evident that “weapon of war” or “weapon intended to do most damages to the human body” are utterly garbage categories, that firearms by design are capable of causing damage, that what armies have equipped soldiers with changed over time but evidently the firearms in the hands of soldiers and firearms in the hands of civilians work by the same basic physics.

None of that should escape the mind and attention of a normal functioning relatively ignorant 11 years old.
It’s impossible to have an honest debate with someone when a random functioning 11 years old would know better than the debater.

(I fear that at a later age, the soul crushing “majority” rule and media propaganda plus school (c) may have destroyed the little reasoning capability of that child.)

(a) an objective standard, if you can sort out the statements of facts from the opinions or other non factual statements (b), and if you have the means to determine the veracity of the statements of facts

(b) according to modern US legal precedents, non factual statements can be emphasized by the use of “really literally“.

(c) yes, I believe school – not media, not social media – is the evil at the origin of most problems

niceguy
Reply to  niceguy
July 6, 2022 8:48 pm

When I say 11 years old, I mean the hypothetical human reacting to that crap:
https://twitter.com/votevets/status/1544799356460716032?cxt=HHwWgMC-sY-1nfAqAAAA

A human being would know that firearms send bullets waaaay faster than a car. Like not even in the same ballpark. Like how are you even going to shot at cars with bullets if these are going about the same speed. Like it’s a garbage comparison.

Even children in archery with their weak arms can send dangerous objects waaay faster than a car. Like duh.

Like the guy is “U.S. Army Veteran Rob Gurtcheff”. Like US army has some lame soldiers.

griff
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 6, 2022 2:09 am

And in Europe, with its higher population, a far lower number were killed by fire arms.

Are the people different there, or the gun laws?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 6, 2022 9:28 am

1) more people are killed by other means, compared to the US
2) The number of people killed by firearms was much lower in Europe even before guns were all but outlawed in Europe, so it isn’t the presence or absence of guns.
4) Restricting guns has never reduced gun violence.
3) The demographics between the US and Europe are very, very different.
4) Anyone who thinks banning guns will cause criminals to stop using guns is very ignorant of reality.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2022 9:36 am

“more people are killed by other means, compared to the US”

Remove the suicides from the US stats and then compare…

Incidentally, if you compare “mass slaughters” in Australia over the 20 years before their big ban (I think it was 1996) and the 20 years following, the numbers are barely different. What an impact!

Jtom
Reply to  griff
July 6, 2022 5:22 pm

More have been killed by guns in Europe than in the U.S., and a great many more by poisonous gas.

niceguy
Reply to  griff
July 6, 2022 7:26 pm

And in some EU country people used to kill themselves by Di-Antalvic a very common, mild, often prescribed anti-pain drug in France; a drug that was so used so cautiously by French people that most people had many unused tablets in their closet, tablets that were prescribed but not consumed.

So obviously the EU regulator, pushed by concerned something something, forbid the (sometimes badly tolerated) drug.

Now the French physicians complain that they lack intermediate pain treatments, between the very mild pain and the stronger but less benign drugs.

The “societal” need to ban Di-Antalvic was very heavily pushed by the French media. The drug was like the one problematic drug in France for its few SE. Since the ban we have received zero info on the evidence of effects on suicide.

niceguy
Reply to  griff
July 6, 2022 8:51 pm

In France men who own weapons typically commit suicide by guns.

“Traditionally”/”culturally” women commit suicide by drugs.

The end game?

AndyHce
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 6, 2022 2:31 am

A recent article, which I’m too lazy to search out, implicitly labeled as murder all the cases of people defending their homes, families and lives (stand your ground laws). Thus if those people had been disarmed and their self defense unsuccessful, that 45,000 number would have been significantly smaller, assuming their assailant’s had been using weapons other than guns.

MarkW
Reply to  AndyHce
July 6, 2022 9:30 am

Criminals using something other than guns is highly unlikely as gun restrictions only take guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

What is more likely is that there wouldn’t be that much difference in the number of people who are dying. The difference will be in who is dying.

Tom in Florida
July 5, 2022 12:11 pm

I would comment on the Vision 1 line: “The Constitution allocates powers to the three branches of government..”
A better phrasing, and more correct in my view, is that the Constitution identifies the powers that we the People grant to the federal government (paying particular attention to the 10th Amendment). The allocation and seperation of those powers is secondary to the basic premise.
It should be, it must be, clear that we the People have all the power and rights and only we the People can give some of those away in order for government to function for the benefit of we the People.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 5, 2022 2:07 pm

10th AmendmentThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 5, 2022 2:11 pm

Tom, the trouble with your formulation that we the people hold all powers and can choose to give some over to government is that if that is carried to its logical conclusion, a majority we can legitimately oppress a minority they.

The truly unique contribution of the Founding Fathers was the protection of inalienable rights endowed by the creator. Rights which may not be legitimately abridged even if 100% minus one person votes to do so. Of course this is why those rights are slowly disappearing along with any concept of a creator.

Practically speaking, unless men freely subordinate themselves to a higher power (even just suspending disbelief and accepting inalienable individual rights), and accept that there are natural law protections of the individual, eventually those protections disappear. A Republic, if you can keep it.

AndyHce
Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 6, 2022 2:34 am

As in the truckers’ efforts in Canada and the current farmers’ efforts in the Netherlands where the central government is bring in troops in armored vehicles?

July 5, 2022 12:13 pm

My take on the EPA decision:
EPA now stuck between a rock and a hard place on CO2
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2022/07/05/epa-now-stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-on-co2/

The beginning: “There are lots of happy reports on the Supreme Court’s ruling throwing out EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan. Some go so far as to suggest that EPA is barred from regulating power plant CO2 emissions.

It is not quite that simple and the result is rather amusing. EPA is still required to regulate CO2 under the terms of the Clean Air Act, but that Act provides no way to do that regulation. The Clean Power Plan attempted to expand an obscure minor clause in the Act to do the job but SCOTUS correctly ruled that the clause does not confer that kind of massive authority.

EPA is between a rock and a hard place. It should tell Congress that it cannot do the job and needs a new law, along the lines of the SO2 law added to the Act in 1990, curbing emissions. But such a law has zero chance of passing in the foreseeable future.

EPA is stuck. What they will now do is anybody’s guess. Enjoy their dilemma!”

Lots more detail in the article.

AWG
Reply to  David Wojick
July 5, 2022 1:52 pm

Eliminate the EPA. Most states already have their own functional analog, and quite frankly, it has never been the role of the Fe’ral Government to supersede or abrogate the State’s authority.

Andy Pattullo
July 5, 2022 12:14 pm

Citizens and voters need to take note of this president analysis. One side is trying to follow the rules as written in documents that all can access read and understand. Another side is trying to make up the rules according to their own perceptions of good and bad and who have a track record of making things worse no matter what their intentions. The rules may not be perfect, but giving the ability to small minorities to remake the rules according to their own ideology – essentially on a whim is chaos. The rules can be changed only when a large majority of citizens agree to new rules through a democratic process – anything else is anarchy.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
July 5, 2022 5:13 pm

Actually it is the conservative judges who are trying to make up rules. They invented the idea of the “major questions doctrine.” which allows them to strike down any regulations they don’t like. Nowhere in the constitution is this stated and there is nothing that says that congress cannot give government agencies as much regulatory authority as it wants.

And given that the supreme court had just ruled against abortion on the grounds that it was not mentioned in the constitution and therefore not a protected right it seems extremely cynical in the least to then turn around and invent a whole new doctrine (i.e the major question doctrine) that allows them to do what they like.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 5, 2022 7:39 pm

“Nowhere in the constitution is this stated and there is nothing that says that congress cannot give government agencies as much regulatory authority as it wants.”
You are confused. What the SC is saying is that only the legislature (not anyone in the government) can give agencies specific regulation authority. What agencies cannot do is assume authority they have not been given by the legislature or expand their authority beyond that stated in the legislation.
As for the abortion, the SC did not rule against abortion. It ruled that the Congress has not passed any legislation concerning abortion so it is left to the States in accordance with the 10th Amendment rather than relying on an edict from the SC itself.

Kemaris
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 5, 2022 7:43 pm

There is no major questions doctrine, that is a Leftists pretence in order to claim it is something new. The Supreme Court has been saying “Congress does not hide mountains in mouseholes” for decades. What you are pretending is new is simply a canon of construction, an observation that expansive authority must be explicitly granted.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Kemaris
July 5, 2022 9:01 pm

Kemaris,
and where in the US constitution does it say that congress can’t hide “mountain in mouse holes”? This is something that the supreme court has decided for itself and again only the supreme court can decide whether or nothing something is sufficiently large to count as a mountain.

And the doctrine clearly exists in the minds of the supreme court justices since only last year Justice Gorsuch stated
that: “If administrative agencies seek to regulate the daily lives and liberties of millions of Americans, the doctrine says, they must at least be able to trace that power to a clear grant of authority from Congress.”

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 5, 2022 9:43 pm

I see you are still trying to defend the claim that only a regulatory agency is qualified to determine what the limits on it’s own powers are.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 2:23 am

No. I am just pointing out that this doctrine of “major questions” does not exist in the constitution. So claiming a non-existence doctrine as the basis of a legal decision goes against the claim that the justices are just interpreting the constitution as written.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 6, 2022 7:28 am

‘I am just pointing out that this doctrine of “major questions” does not exist in the constitution.’

Neither does the ‘Incorporation Doctrine’ wherein the Judiciary extends parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. Unfortunately for the Left, this includes the Second Amendment, the moral being, ‘live by the judicially active sword, die by the judicially active sword’.

MarkW
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 6, 2022 9:33 am

I’ve seen quite a few liberals declare that incorporation doesn’t include the 2nd amendment.
Why?
Mostly because guns are nasty.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 6, 2022 9:32 am

You are claiming that the SC has no right to rein in regulatory agencies. That being the case, we are forced to rely on the regulatory agencies to rein themselves in.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 10:24 pm

Again Mark, I am simply claiming that the “major questions” doctrine that the Supreme Court is using as a justification for overturning the regulations is not explicitly written down anywhere. No you might think that the major questions doctrine is a good one (and I am happy to agree with you there) but that doesn’t mean that it exists or it is valid.

niceguy
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
July 6, 2022 6:41 pm

I think (and I’m willing to be corrected) on the whole Earth, the US is the one and only country where instead of a proper law, “a “right” to abortion” (a bizarre idea of a “right” since its delimitation is forever changing) was discerned in a fundamental text and in vague legal ideas of “due process”, and not voted on.
(Voted either by elected representatives or by a referendum.)

Joe Dun
July 5, 2022 12:22 pm

Sadly, even if the Republicans are less extreme in their efforts to ignore the Constitution, they are pretty much on board with the Democrats in doing so. Even when the Republicans had the Presidency, and controlled both the House and Senate, they continued to approve a budget that funded things they didn’t have the constitutional authority to do. E.g. the Board of Education, the FDA, the EPA, etc (the total for the unconstitutional part of the budget is around 2/3 of the non-military spending).

And while the Republicans pay lip service to the idea of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, they certainly still like the ever expanding power that our federal government has taken. And a constitutionally ignorant population lets them get away with it.

AndyHce
Reply to  Joe Dun
July 6, 2022 2:45 am

If anyone gains legitimate power (is elected or is in danger of being voted for by a majority) and that person shows signs of rocking the gravy boat, both parties show their true colors of really being of one mind on almost everything by joining forces to attack that person as viciously as necessary to assure he/she doesn’t stand a chance.

niceguy
Reply to  Joe Dun
July 6, 2022 6:48 pm

The WUWT crowd was very supportive of the FDA and CDC “findings” (aka patently demented takes, as any reasonably intelligent but ignorant 11 years old would see, by reading) on the vaccines the WUWT loved.

Vuk
July 5, 2022 12:37 pm

Now, this is funny OT
Electric police cars ‘running out of puff’ on way to emergencies
The blue lights and sirens drain the batteries and there are not enough charging points, a Police and Crime Commissioner warns.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/05/electric-police-cars-run-puff-way-emergencies-says-commissioner/

niceguy
Reply to  Vuk
July 6, 2022 6:54 pm

And call BS on LEDs power (even blue ones) k-i-l-l-i-n-g an electric car.

MarkW
Reply to  niceguy
July 6, 2022 8:40 pm

It’s not just the LEDs, it’s also the siren, and the way the cars are being driven when the lights and sirens are on.

Doonman
July 5, 2022 12:55 pm

In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms.

Wrong. They were killed by humans using firearms. Firearms do not load, aim and fire themselves. When justices ignore facts in their arguments, they reduce themselves to politicians, which is not why they are there. Whoever voted to confirm Breyer should be ashamed of themselves for confirming an idiot.

AWG
Reply to  Doonman
July 5, 2022 1:56 pm

If you know that Breyer is an idiot who has no business on the Supreme Court, you are going to love their most recent Affirmative Action hire: Ketanji Brown Jackson
This person doesn’t even know what a “woman” is; I’m sure that she will recuse herself on any matter of the court that might otherwise need the services of a biologist.

AndyHce
Reply to  AWG
July 6, 2022 2:50 am

She might be as dump as you think but the context of the question is important. If in an academic discussion of woke values, uncertainty might be the rational position. However, if the question was put in a legal context, it is law and legal precedent, not biologists, that determine the correct answer.

Gunga Din
Reply to  AndyHce
July 6, 2022 9:09 am

So much for “follow the science”!

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Doonman
July 5, 2022 3:14 pm

Cars drive drunk and cutlery makes you fat….

Kemaris
Reply to  Doonman
July 5, 2022 7:44 pm

The Finish Kalevalla includes a hero (“lusty old Vannemoinen”) who owns a couple of crossbows that load and fire themselves according to his will.

griff
Reply to  Doonman
July 6, 2022 2:07 am

Europe has quite as many dysfunctional and criminal humans as the US – in fact more, having a larger population.

And it has a tiny percentage of US mass shootings.

Copenhagen’s sad events recently are the first mass shooting in that nation since 2007 (when 2 people got shot).

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
July 6, 2022 9:15 am

Who cares? You don’t get to vote on U.S. Constitutional Amendments.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 6, 2022 9:35 am

Every place where gun violence is low, gun violence was low prior to guns being restricted or banned.
Restricting guns has never reduced gun violence, it just makes life safer for criminals.

Doonman
Reply to  griff
July 6, 2022 10:21 am

Over 4 million deaths occur each year worldwide from obesity. The vast majority of these deaths were caused using forks, not chopsticks.

Therefore, forks should be banned to prevent the ravages of obesity deaths.

The logic used here is the same as yours.

Jtom
Reply to  griff
July 6, 2022 5:43 pm

Cherry picking timeframes again, eh Griff? Many more have been killed by guns in Europe than the U.S., and millions more by gas. The difference is, for the most part, large cultural groups are kept within country borders, and it is years before there is violence between the different cultures (then they more than make up for the intervening years of low gun violence). In the US, cultures live side-by-side; the friction is constant. Then there are the open borders and the drug wars. From 1776 through 1the 1950s gun ownership was high and gun violence, low. What has changed since the end of the 1950s? Guns still do the same thing they have always done; shoot small objects at high speeds.

btw, there have been periods when there were more knife deaths in London than murders in NYC, but I guess knives don’t count.

MarkW
Reply to  Jtom
July 6, 2022 8:43 pm

Back in the 50’s you could buy guns through the mail, kids would carry guns with them to school in order to use them at after school hunting clubs, or to use them to hunt on the way home.

Guns were everywhere, yet mass shootings were almost unheard of.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 4:43 pm

There were more mass killings by arson than by guns!

Old Man Winter
July 5, 2022 1:00 pm

The first time I read the Constitution 35 ya, I was shocked by how much a tyrant could abuse
presidential emergency powers to take control of the US and/or destroy it. For this reason, it’s good
to teach youngsters about what it exactly says, as some of you are already doing. I’d also add the
the Federalist papers for insights into how the Constitution came into being (While I haven’t read
the Federalist papers (too old & not enough time), I’ve read enough to know they’re the next most
important thing to read). The Founding Fathers were based!

Old Man Winter
July 5, 2022 1:42 pm

Dementia Joe- You know … the Thing

Last edited 1 month ago by Old Man Winter
Rich Davis
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 5, 2022 2:29 pm

This was not entirely a gaffe in my opinion. First we see “all men and women” as the clue that woke rules apply even when quoting an original document. Then he stops himself short of saying Creator, because the least woke thing of all is to mention G*d.

Clyde Spencer
July 5, 2022 1:58 pm

The government must do everything appropriate to save the planet; EPA to implement.

In other words, the end justifies any means, even if it isn’t authorized by the Constitution.

July 5, 2022 2:03 pm

Less government and more personal freedom,
as encouraged by the Constitution
vs
More government and less personal freedom,
ignoring the Constitution

CD in Wisconsin
July 5, 2022 3:23 pm

“Suppose that you are on the Supreme Court, and you subscribe to Vision 2; and thus you find yourself time after time on the losing end of these 6-3 decisions. What’s your strategy in writing your dissents? Actually, it’s easy. The goal is to divert attention away from the actual Constitution as far and as quickly as possible.”

*************

In a similar vein, if and when it becomes much more widely known that there are serious scientific problems with the climate alarmist narrative, what might happen on the Left? Will they accept the science making the CAGW narrative faulty? Will the science of the Earth’s climate actually matter to them anymore?

If the ideology of the Left rules supremely above all else in their minds, does that ideology state that fossil fuels are evil and demand that they be phased out ASAP? Is this the reason why many in the scientific field rigorously defend CAGW and refuse to acknowledge the scientific issues with it? Has science now truly become subordinated to ideological and political ends? What is called, Lysenkoism?

If the mind of the Left, if there are parallel thought processes or methodologies at work here between abortion rights on one hand and climate and energy issues on the other, it would certainly explain things. And to say if concerns me is putting it mildly.

Andy Espersen
July 5, 2022 3:48 pm

I have just read Thomas Sowell’s great book, “A Conflict of Visions” : Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. Also he postulates two political visions, namely the unconstrained and the constrained visions.

Francis Menton’s two visions are very similar to Thomas Sowell’s. Sowell emphasises that both visions can co-exist in the same individuals – it is not a question of either/or. They are personal, often unconscious, philosophical tendencies only.

paul courtney
July 5, 2022 5:59 pm

This is an excellent article, and I thank our host for reprinting it. This science site recognizes what the left is doing, and this article shows an understanding of how the US Constitution works to protect us from judges making law. Many well-educated scientists don’t take the time to understand these legal principles, the above article is a fine, brief primer on what the “conservative” jurists are doing (applying law) and what the leftist jurists are doing (something else!). I hope these decisions are a turning point, but I fear the left is still winning.

Philip
July 5, 2022 6:00 pm

There is only one Constitutional vision in the US Supreme Court. The other is h— bent on manipulating both the Court and the Constitution to suit a far-left activist social politics.

Oldanalyst
July 5, 2022 8:23 pm

All three liberals on the SC are subversives and should be impeached.

MarkW
Reply to  Oldanalyst
July 5, 2022 9:45 pm

The dissents in these three cases should be sufficient evidence that none of the three are actually doing the job they are being paid to do.

Alexander Vissers
July 6, 2022 5:41 am

The US constitution is foremost a document descri