Friday, January 16, 2009

A new bad excuse, maybe...

...or, It's really frightening to think that tripe like this comes from constitutional law professors:

Because I teach a constitutional law course, as Obama once did, I was especially drawn to the chapter, “Our Constitution.” Though constitutional jurisprudence is but one of several topics covered, the tone was instructive. What I found was not a simplistic, one-size-fits-all approach such as that employed by many of his political opponents; that is, the familiar, “We need judges that strictly interpret the Constitution as the Framers wrote it.” For them, that refrain constitutes game, set and match.
If only it were that simple.
The president-elect understands that the law, just like this nation’s history, is anything but simple. He acknowledges the thorny realities, those which complicate: That accurately ascertaining what this nation’s founders intended by the document they patched together 222 years ago is a quest more chimerical than real; and that those very framers housed contradictions as deep as any men.

I'm sure the Founders did house many deep contradictions, but that strikes me as a piss-poor excuse to interpret their final ruling document as some judges have over the last few decades. It also occurs to me that such a perspective on and interpretation of that document renders it virtually meaningless and will allow those who deign to disarm and subjugate the people to do pretty much whatever the hell they want. "What the hell do you mean the Second Amendment forbids gun confiscation? You can't possibly know for sure that's what the Founders meant to proscribe!" And it seems to me that this particular professor is putting forth an appallingly dishonest portrayal of the strict constructionist philosophy. I would guess a strict interpretation of the Constitution means more limited government, which pretty much explains why these damn law professors try to paint such as "simplistic" or "unrealistic," or whatever pejorative comes to mind for them. Of course even even in areas in which the Founders made it abundantly clear what they meant vis-a-vis, for example, the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, that document has been folded, spindled and mutilated to the point that it's used to justify the very actions the Founders meant to protect against. At any rate, Mr. Wall's take really should scare the hell out of anyone who wishes to remain free, as it paves the way for mob rule and a nation of men and not of laws -- which, again, is the very thing the Founding Fathers fought a war to throw off.