In response to
Judging, the Cosmic Way
COS911
Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM
In response to
The Right Opinion
-
Navigating the ObamaCare Maze
-
Tone at the Top
-
The IRS Hits the Century Mark
-
From The Comedy Store
-
A Battering Ram Becomes a Stonewall
-
Terrorism Is Never Justified
-
Tom Ridge
-
Boston Bomber Linked to 9/11 Anniversary Murder of Jews
-
Obama's Bloody Recipe for More Benghazis
-
The 'Assassinate Wall Street' Movie
-
First Amendment Clause-Trophobia
-
There's a Fly in My Soup
- More Opinion
Policy and Analysis
Our Mission
The Patriot Post's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
Circuitously to the correct point...why Will would call this book "sharp as a stiletto" when he goes on the explain how pedestrian and illogical the thinking exhibited in the text is, is beyond me. He summarizes Wilkinson with:"One problem with originalism, Wilkinson argues, is that historical research concerning the original meaning of the Constitution's text -- how it was understood when ratified -- often is inconclusive."Yet he doesn't go on the explain that the reasoning behind the text of the Constitution, and what it means, is probably the most well documented historical record in the history of mankind, at least up to the 20th century. Given the record and the plain writing of the text, the Consitution should not be particularly difficult for judges to use given they have a tripple digit IQ and ethics--tragically most judges appear to lack at least one, if not both these characteristics. And apparently Wilkinson, based on this summary, is apparently one of those who lack both. A constitution, to have any meaning what so ever, must say what it said when written. Otherwise judges can, and currently do, say it says anything they want--and you can't get more undemocratic than that. For those who don't like what was written, our Constitution provides a useful remmedy called ammending, which ensures a public debate and that rights can't be abolished or the Federal Governments power enhanced without the approval of a suppermajority as represented in the respective states.