When RWers say they are strict Constitutionalists, they really mean they are Articleists

[white_wolf]

I really do think these people would love to take us back to the days of the Articles of Confederation where there was a barely function government and the States had most of the power.

The reason I'm bringing this up now is because today in my law class we went over McCulloch V. Maryland and my professor mentioned that one of the important things about this decision was that, aside from establishing the doctrine of Implied Powers, was that it undercut the ideas of strict Constitutional Constructionalism and State Sovereignty. In his decision Marshall talks about how the U.S. is no longer a confederacy of semi-sovereign states, but is a union and that the Federal government is a government of the people, not the states. He also talked about Marshall was such a strong advocate of a strong and functional central government, because he saw how inefficient the government was under the Articles of Confederations.

After class, I asked him how Ron Paul and other Republican's views of a very weak central government and strong state rights hold up against the precedent established in McCulloch V Maryland. He said it seemed to him like Ron Paul, Rick Perry, etc. really wanted us to back to the system under the Articles of Confederation. He said he found it very odd that they are trying to bring back these old doctrines, when we have John Marshall speaking against those doctrines in the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. He also mentioned he really hopes none of them get elected, because there is always a chance those old doctrines could come back.

On a side note, does anyone know where Bachman got her law degree from, because when I mentioned it in class he looked at me like he couldn't believe it. It was probably from Liberty, knowing her.

[Arkana]

1. The worst-kept secret in American history

is that the Founding Fathers themselves weren't "strict constructionists".

If they were, not only would they never have drawn up the Bill of Rights, there would be no process to amend the document as written.

[rpannier]

2. Oral Roberts University

[Kennah]

3. Is that a corndog crack?

[FarLeftFist]

5. It really is Oral Roberts. No surprise there.

[Kennah]

8. OMG! It's true. But if it weren't, it would be a brilliantly snarky comment.

[FarLeftFist]

13. Good humor!

[rpannier]

6. No

There really is an Oral Roberts University in Oklahoma
She was in one of the last Law School Graduating classes of the University

[Kennah]

4. I think it's absolutely true of the Randians. They are anarcho-capitalists.

But I think the majority of the RW nutjobs are minarchists.

[jowsybart]

7. the aristocrats illegally installed the Constitution because democracy was blooming under the AOCs

The constitution was the creation of james madison, aka the father of the constitution.

Madison and his rich aristocrat friends took over the states by illegally installing the constitution.

The rich were afraid of land reform, of the majority seizing power and passing debt relief laws and taxing the rich.

In fact that was already happening under the articles, and that was why Madison et al installed the constitution. It was in fact a coup of the rich over the masses.

Some summaries from the Federalist papers and madison's writings:

-the primary purpose of the constitution was to preserve wealth INequality.

Madison said that his new constitution would create a federal govt that would "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

He wrote that the const and the govt it would create would prevent the majority from uniting and discovering their common interests and thus prevent the majority from controlling their own govt.

The separation of powers, the checks and balances would prevent the people from using the govt to do as the people wanted.

The most important aspect of the const was that it increased the size of the electoral districts that elected politicians to a federal govt. That increased size of districts also increased the factions in the districts and thereby prevented the majority from uniting against the rich.

madison was the richest man to ever become president, by some calculations.

[FarLeftFist]

12. Interesting. Amazing how times have changed.

[white_wolf]

14. I personally think Thomas Paine should have written the Constitutio. He would have done a good job.

I've heard he actually hated the U.S. Constitution because it didn't go far enough to limit the power of the aristocracy?

[jowsybart]

16. didn't go FAR ENOUGH to limit power of aristocracy???!`

the constitution was expressly written by the rich people to help them kill off democracy! The constitution was FOR and BY the aristocrats of america, meaning the rich and powerful of america.

[jowsybart]

17. the times have changed very little.

america and its rich man's constitution still dominates america, killing off democracy, and it does a better job than ever of doing just that.

[FarLeftFist]

19. I should have noted sarcasm. Today it seems like a constant fight against the RW to expand democracy

They're striving for voter suppression, inequality, controlled media, less democracy, killing workers rights, shilling for the rich etc.

[bluestateguy]

9. Bottom line: the Constitution made the government bigger

The small governmenters in 1787 were the Anti-Federalists and the opponents of the Constitution.

[0rganism]

10. and when they say they're fundamentalist Christians, they really mean Paulists

Most of the Sermon on the Mount is pure anathema to their viewpoints.

[white_wolf]

11. Paul of Taurus or Paul of Texas? Lol you can never tell with these people.

Seriously, though Paul is very different from Jesus. It's weird reading Paul's words than reading the Gospels.

[Initech]

15. Kind of hard to be strict constitutionalists when you haven't read it to begin with.

[Tsiyu]

18. Great post

The Constitution was designed to be a somewhat fluid document, to address the times in which it is interpreted.

To go back to any time and call that "The" Definitive Constitutional Period, for precedent's sake, is in itself unconstitutional.

Unless, as you say, the Rightwing Wacknuts - Supreme and otherwise - are merely scrapping the current law of the land altogether and finding precedent in whatever supports an oligarchy.

They'll be quoting ancient Roman law next, and calling that "All-American."