Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Baitball Blogger

(46,697 posts)
Mon Jul 4, 2022, 08:09 AM Jul 2022

Don't know why I didn't think about this before.

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2022, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

We already know that the Conservative's textualist process is a ruse to lasso this country back to the 1800s. Each day we struggle to understand how an institution that relies on reasoning could reach the decisions that it has been making. Today I thought of a new way to understand this, in a rational manner.

It just takes a simple look at what is defined as primary and secondary law. From Google:

Primary and Secondary Legal Sources
Primary legal sources are the actual law in the form of constitutions, court cases, statutes, and administrative rules and regulations. Secondary legal sources may restate the law, but they also discuss, analyze, describe, explain, or critique it as well.

Major emphasis on ACTUAL law. To me, that means that the law in the United States was always meant to be dynamic. Moving and changing to meet the needs of a growing population. Thus, a living document. If it weren't a living document, we would call it a Bible. Static rules that never change, which would render Congress obsolete. It's like the Rogue Court is usurping the power of our legislators. tying their hands so they can't do their job of making new laws to deal with new situations that our country faces every day.

The Rogue Court's static thinking became apparent when it broke with established primary law in order to repressively and regressively take us back to a time that doesn't even exist any longer, except for pockets of their individual societies. And this is why a theocratic leaning justice is a problem in this country. They want one, unchanging, static book to rule us all. It's their mindset. They are indoctrinated to follow rituals and tradition that never change. At least, in their personal beliefs. This is not a good formula for a country of more than 300 million people, because their religious beliefs will inevitably interfere with the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of millions. Most of us Americans were taught to reach for the stars and become the best at whatever makes us happiest. And for most of us, that means freedom from the most repressive aspects of community life.

We certainly have a battle on our hands, but at least, reasoning and logic is on our side.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Don't know why I didn't think about this before. (Original Post) Baitball Blogger Jul 2022 OP
The fact that the founders provided for an amendment procedure Buns_of_Fire Jul 2022 #1
+1 Baitball Blogger Jul 2022 #2
But the requirements for an amendment Freddie Jul 2022 #3
That's where it gets weird to me... Hugin Jul 2022 #4
Great observations all around. Baitball Blogger Jul 2022 #8
Right. H2O Man Jul 2022 #7
Ummm, 330 million people ? nt eppur_se_muova Jul 2022 #5
Damn. It's like I was counting ballots for the Republicans. Baitball Blogger Jul 2022 #6
Well, technically you did say *more than* 3 million ... nt eppur_se_muova Jul 2022 #9
So glad you have my back. Baitball Blogger Jul 2022 #10

Buns_of_Fire

(17,172 posts)
1. The fact that the founders provided for an amendment procedure
Mon Jul 4, 2022, 08:14 AM
Jul 2022

in the original seems to prove that the Constitution was never intended to remain static.

Freddie

(9,258 posts)
3. But the requirements for an amendment
Mon Jul 4, 2022, 08:37 AM
Jul 2022

Means that it’s impossible, now. I (female) can’t even get equal rights guaranteed by law.

Hugin

(33,100 posts)
4. That's where it gets weird to me...
Mon Jul 4, 2022, 09:06 AM
Jul 2022

The so-called originalists have as their unspoken goal since before Sarah Palin wore patent leather shoes to revert the Constitution back to a form that never existed. It probably started at least shortly after the Civil War, if not much earlier with the second Constitutional Convention.

They are trying to force a Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution. They believe they can control the process by controlling the State legislatures. Of course, there are other paths to change it. Those require some interaction at the national federal level which would never stand for their extreme views.

I personally think what they object to in the current Constitution is that it is there to recognize and expand civil rights. They want it instead to suppress those who they see as inferior (or even sinful):

I guarantee the vast majority of their base don’t even know what they are fighting for and really have no care as long as they are told they are winning. Winning what? Oppression.

Baitball Blogger

(46,697 posts)
8. Great observations all around.
Mon Jul 4, 2022, 10:44 AM
Jul 2022

I especially like your point that the vast majority of their base don't even know what they are fighting for.

And that might be the Achille's Heel, because the right-wing architects are slashing and dashing so hard at everyone and everything, that there will be slough off of support as some begin to recognize that their rights are also being encroached on.

H2O Man

(73,524 posts)
7. Right.
Mon Jul 4, 2022, 10:41 AM
Jul 2022

We are not in a position where focusing on an amendment is realistic now. There are many, many other things that come first.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Don't know why I didn't t...