(18) comments Back to story

Claudia Burnam

[thumbup] E G Wiley

Gary Miller

If we returned to strict observance of the constitution we wouldn't recognize the US.

Carlos Ponce

"Two examples: Neither abortion nor marriage is found in the Constitution."

Add to that education. That is left up to the individual states or the people. Yet there are presidential candidates promising to raise teacher salaries. They are hoping to get the teacher union endorsement with a promise that legally under the Constitution cannot be kept or should not be. And if they do it anyway there are are strings attached. Remember when President Obama threatened to withhold Federal funds to schools that did not allow Jimmy into the girls' restroom and dressing rooms if he woke up feeling female one morning? And they contend the next day Jimmy could return to the boys' room since they claim sexual identity is "fluid".

In one candidate's platform (Bernie Sanders) a promise is made to "End racial and gender disparities in teacher pay." There are no distinctions made on a school district's teacher salary schedule as to gender or race. His platform is just political rhetoric yet the gullible eat it up.

They are supposed to be running for President of the United States not your local school board.

Bailey Jones

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the supreme authority over what is, and what isn't, "constitutional". Both republicans and democrats may disagree with the rulings of the courts - and they may change over time (civil rights comes to mind) - but that's the system the founders created. Our government is, therefore, completely constitutional - current legal challenges not withstanding.

Our founders were smart enough to create a government that could endure. I doubt that any of them would recognize America today. And I imagine that all of them would be amazed that we've been able to keep the constitution intact for 233 years.

The America of 1787 isn't one that I would want to live in. Indeed, it's not one that could survive in the modern world. Nations evolve, or else they die. I vote for evolution.

Carlos Ponce

My vote for Trump in 2016 came from his platform to nominate "originalists" judges and justices. Our Founding Fathers built into the Constitution a means of altering their original intent through amendment. Re-interpretation does not sit well with me. The writings of those who wrote the 1787 Constitution and subsequent amendments are there for us to peruse. Altering their intent is not wise since a future court can re-interpret their re-interpretation. Liberals will discover this when Roe v. Wade is revisited. Bailey calls it "evolution". I think not.

Gary Scoggin

There is also context. What was contextually appropriate and logical then isn’t so today. Properly applying that old but marvelous document in today’s world takes the flexibility to understand the differences between then and now.

That said, I do believe that over the years we’ve let the interstate commerce clause overwhelm the tenth amendment and abortion and education are matters that should be left to the states. Marriage is different in that it is a contract which should be equally enforceable across the US (an interstate commerce issue).

Bailey Jones

I think the whole concept of "states" is rapidly becoming an anachronism. There was a time when states mattered - they differed wildly in culture, economies, levels of development, population, laws, etc., and travel from one state to the next might take two weeks. These days we are much more homogeneous. I would argue that the only limit on our homogeneity is the fact that state governments keep getting in the way.

I wonder if it's in our national interest that a kid educated in Massachusetts or Washington state graduates miles ahead of a kid educated in Mississippi, or that the kid from Podunk, Mississippi will never see the same economic opportunities as the kid from Seattle.

The 10th amendment says "The 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." It's the "or to the People" part that interests me. To my mind, "the people" is the people of the whole country. I think education is a national concern. Local control, surely, but national aspiration.

Gary Scoggin

Bailey... just because it might be a good idea doesn’t mean it’s Constitutional. In fact, I think a big problem over the years is that all three branches of government have confused the two. While I am by no means a strict constructionist, the Constitution does have meaning and while interpretations should be contextualized, they can’t be invented out of whole cloth. (See: the right to privacy.) To this point I disagree that states are becoming anachronistic in that are representative of different cultures within our nation. While these cultures are slowly merging, they are at this point still somewhat distinct. I submit that within the bounds of the Bill of Rights, that is a good thing.

Bailey Jones

I'll concede the point that Mississippi does have the constitutional right to be ignorant, if that's what the state legislature wants - and apparently it is. The question then becomes, what do the rest of the states do with Mississippi? Their state government is the most dependent on federal resources of all the states. (https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/) Their unwillingness to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is draining our resources.

Maybe the rest of us should tell Mississippi to get off the couch and go get a job. But then there's that "least educated and most ignorant" problem that makes them unemployable.

It's not unlike the slavery question. Southern states had the constitutional right to own slaves but the rest of the county looked down on them for it - which caused quite a bit of resentment in the south, until they finally seceded. Maybe if we nag Mississippi enough they'll move out of our basement and get a place of their own.

Bailey Jones

Without Lincoln radically expanding the power of the executive, it's likely that secession would have succeeded. After the south seceded, it's likely that New York and the northwest territories would have followed, and that would have been the end of the United States. Texas would now be either a confederate state, or more likely an independent state since the confederacy, having been born of division, would have continued to splinter. With no source of income other than tariffs and custom duties, whatever was left of the US would not have had the power to intervene in either world war. Would 1914 Europe have just fought itself into exhaustion - would they be fighting still? Would 1939 England have been defeated and Russia now master of the west, with Japan master of the east? Would the confederate states have filibustered their way across Mexico and the Caribbean to become kings of sugar as well as cotton? And then oil? These things are fun to think about.

The SC may well return abortion to the states, which means it will remain available to all except the poorest women who can't afford a plane ticket. As for the rest - the Trump presidency will go down in history as further strengthening the executive branch, at the expense of both the legislative and judicial branches. You will be hard pressed to find support for this in the "originalist" writings of the founders.

Mike Zeller

I see where Trump is now trying to tell the Supreme Court how to run things. I'm sure they are waiting on "pins and needles" waiting for his instructions. lol [beam] What a Doofus.

Carlos Ponce

Sotomayor rebuked fellow justices over their opinion in Wolf v. Cook County.

Ted Cruz responded:

"I believe we have a handful of judges who are operating effectively as part of the Resistance Movement, trying to put themselves in the way of Trump policies they happen to disagree with. And so I have to say I read Justice Sotomayor’s complaint about, ‘gosh, we’re getting all these emergency appeals of the Supreme Court’, I read it a little bit like an arsonist complaining about the noise from the fire trucks. The reason there is so many appeals is you’ve had fifty-five nationwide injunctions from far too many judges who are not honoring their oath. They’re not following the law. Instead they’re operating as partisan political activists.”

Ted Cruz then tweeted:

"It's clear there are a handful of activist district judges trying to stop @realDonaldTrump's policies. Just look at the number of universal injunctions issued:

12 issued in 8 yrs of Bush Admin

19 issued in 8 yrs of Obama Admin

55 issued in just 3 yrs of Trump Admin"

Then Trump tweeted:

" 'Sotomayor accuses GOP appointed Justices of being biased in favor of Trump.' This is a terrible thing to say. Trying to 'shame' some into voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a 'faker.' Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related, matters! While 'elections have consequences', I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!"

Mike calls out the President but not the instigators. Very one sided. You remind me of the referee who dismisses the initial infraction but throws the flag at the retaliation. Very biased.

Bailey Jones

Judges who find Trump policies to be unconstitutional are "not honoring their oaths".

Jurors who rule against Trump cronies are "biased".

Administration officials who balk at Trump's excesses are "traitors".

Civil servants who obey lawful subpoenas are "never Trumpers".

My "gift of discernment" sees a trend here. And it's not a positive one.

Jarvis Buckley

Any of the candidates, would be made to look foolish in a debate against our President.

Gary Scoggin

Yep. Never argue with a fool. He brings you down to his level and beats you with experience.

Bailey Jones


Mike Zeller


Charles Douglas

Then why are the LEFT, and Democrats not heeding that "CROCK OF WISDOM" concerning arguing with a fool then? They just keep arguing and getting their butts handed to them on a wooden platter and being an embarrassment to themselves! The LEFT can't out talk him, they can't out think him, they can't out maneuver him, and they @/#% "SHO" CAN'T BEAT HIM!!!!! SO I say this, " I'm proud to have THAT KIND OF FOOL on my side any TIME!" So what is that thing I always like to say? Oh yeah, " Your Honor, If it Pleases The Court...." [beam]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.