There’s only one real way to honor the brilliant men who sacrificed so much to give our country a stable, lasting foundational charter: by remaining informed, and spreading the word about what the document really means. The Constitution was meant to change with time and judicial interpretation — as they say, that’s a feature of constitutional governance, not a bug — and differs in significant portions from the Constitution we hear about on, say, Glenn Beck’s show. So, here, a collection of relevant posts from the past few months, on the nature of the Constitution:
- Constitutional democracy compels countermajoritarianism — a term you may know as “judicial activism.”
- If “judicial activism” is real, it knows no party.
- Judicial leadership on social change isn’t always bad. In fact, sometimes it’s profoundly good, as even a passing glance at history reveals.
- The Tenth Amendment — I don’t think that means what you think it means.
- There’s nothing “unconstitutional” about federal spending programs. Any such restraint on fiscal regulations, etc., died almost ninety years ago.
- Actually, appellate judges do make law. That’s their job.
- Ricci v. DeStefano was impossible to call beforehand, added a new, racially recidivist gloss to anti-discrimination law, and as such, was certainly not an indictment of now-Justice Sotomayor.
- The “states’ rights” case for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. What would John Calhoun (DR-SC) do?
- Conservatives pick gun rights over states’ rights, proving that, in a choice between ideological integrity and “red meat,” conservatives will always go for the latter.