Balkinization: The Best Originalist Speech Ever Given

Comments:

لذلك تحرص شركتنا افضل شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض كأفضل الشركات الموجودة فى الرياض على التخلص من جميع الأفات الشرسه مثلا الفئران وغيرها من القوارض التى من الممكن ان تكون سبب فى تدمير اغراض اى منزل او قد تسبب بعض الامراض اونقلها.
شركة رش دفان بالرياض
شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالرياض
شركة مكافحة النمل الاسود بالرياض
شركة مكافحة بق الفراش بالرياض
اسعر شركات مكافحة الحشرات بالرياض
شركة مكافحة الفئران بالرياض
شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض بالرياض

# posted by

ركن كلين : 5:50 AM

There was a short effort to draft Jordan as candidate for president.

# posted by

Unknown : 8:07 AM

The huge flaw in Meese's speech was his foundation for originalism, specifically "original intent" of the Framers. Paul Brest, who is said to have coined the term "Originalism," exposed this major flaw pointing to the difficulties in ascertaining "original intent" of a collective group, whether the Framers of the 1787 Constitution or of the Civil War Amendments. Original Intent originalism is supported by very few today as originalism has evolved through various vagaries and varieties, including Framers/Ratifiers understandings, to the current New Originalism's original public meaning that includes a "construction zone" when such meaning is not clear. During the debates on the 14th A, there were some references to incorporation of at least a portion of the Bill of Rights; but as Brest pointed out, both houses of Congress involved a collective group, making it difficult ascertaining the original intent of those groups. The new Originalism would try to ascertain from the contents of the 14th A the extent to which the 14th A incorporated any of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. There is no specific reference in the 14th A text to incorporation, so perhaps the New Originalism would enter the "construction zone" on determining any such incorporation. Consider the course it took for SCOTUS since the ratification of the 14th A to incorporate some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, most recently McDonald (2010, 5-4) on the 2nd A, suggestion SCOTUS may also have a "construction zone."

I'm not aware that Gerard is an originalist of any variety, although Gerard seems to favor Meese's speech except for what Gerard perceives as a flaw on incorporation that challenges John Bingham and others in Congress. Perhaps for selfish reasons Gerard prefers "Original Intent" originalism over the New Originalism.

But I appreciate the timeliness of Gerard's post by including the video of Barbara Jordon on impeachment. Her speech was riveting back then when I was in my early 40s, and riveting today.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:45 AM

Did you miss the part where she listed off a ton of unConstitutional things Congress should be doing?

# posted by

John Ashman : 9:04 AM

Jordan’s speech is a model for how Congress critters should discuss the requirements of the Constitution before taking action.

If only she showed the same solicitude for limits of the Constitution during the rest of her political career as she showed when arguing for the impeachment of an opposition party POTUS.

I wonder what Jordan would have said concerning the Clinton impeachment if she had not passed away far too early?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:38 AM

I note even there she added something by Joseph Story and Woodrow Wilson.

I gather she added other things like that in other remarks she made at other times.

Ultimately, she and other members of Congress, using their current understandings, had to decide the question. The past could help them, and citing just the Founders would help make your case particularly to more conservative minded types (those like herself who would have originally by many* been seen as not part of "the people" especially over the years so the power in using that material). But, thanks for including the powerful speech.

Anyway, GM added a post about Ford and pardoning Nixon on his other blog (Concurring Opinions).

---

* Cf. the dissents in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

# posted by

Joe : 9:58 AM

OFF TOPEIC: What if Sen, Flake resigned his senate seat: Could the Gov. of AZ appoint former Sen. Flake to fill out the term of the late Sen John McCain?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:09 PM

No, by state law he has to fill it with a Republican.

(joke/statement of various Kelli Ward/Arpaio voters)

# posted by

Joe : 2:01 PM

:::heh:::

I can see heads exploding across the Democrat media if the governor appointed Sheriff Joe to fill out McCain's term.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:14 PM

":::heh:::

I can see heads exploding across the Democrat media if the governor appointed Sheriff Joe"

Bart's comment is a good example of why I, a person who once voted for Pat Buchanan for President, am just sickened by the conservative movement that exists today. Movement conservatives have become simply trolls, they have a sense of victimization that surpasses anything they call out for the same, and their chief principle is 'anything that makes the people we think victimize us angry is good.' It's mentally unsound and pathetic.

Bart, like a lot of conservatives, like to talk (in very hyperbolic terms) about the rule of law and how Democrats violate it routinely. Remember that just last threat Bart tried to pass himself off as some kind of civil libertarian concerned about law enforcement abuses. Yet here he delights in the idea that Joe Arapio might be appointed to the US Senate because it might make the 'Democrat media' (note, there is nothing equivalent to the almost literal arm of the GOP in the mainstream media like Fox News, every accusation seems to be a confession for conservatives these days) upset. Arapio is a man who, as a law enforcement official, paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements for his unconstitutional and illegal abuses and ultimately was convicted of contempt of court by a George W. Bush appointee for the same. But Bart would delight in his appointment to the US Senate because it might make his perceived political enemies angry for a moment. This is a man with no principles, or only sick ones, and sadly it's endemic of the entire movement recently. I used to believe in sincerely engaging people like Bart, but I've learned these people are trolls, they are not to be engaged with in any sincere way.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:26 PM

But for the Trump pardon, could Sheriff Joe A:::::: serve in the Senate?

I've long treated SPAM as a troll, realizing that his only redeeming feature is that he won't be passing on his genes.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:23 PM

Mr. W:

:::chuckle:::

I didn't first raise the subjects of appointing McCain's replacement or Arpaio, but rather made a joke based on the subjects raised in the prior two posts at the expense of the increasingly intolerant Democrat media.

As if on cue, your head exploded at the mere suggestion of appointing Sheriff Joe to the Senate.

Point made.

Given your cheerleading for the Democrat weaponization of law enforcement against political opponents, pardon me if I take your rule of law umbrage against Sheriff Joe as an unintentional joke.

If not for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:49 PM

SPAM's "standard" as a libertarian remains "selfishness uber selflessness." SPAM "claims" to have left "big law" in FL for the "quality of life" in the Mile High State (of mind), settling in a rural community and becoming its Top Dog DUI criminal defense attorney even before recreational Ganja became available.

Visiters to this Blog need no reminder that SPAM served on the deck of the Cruz Canadacy during the run-up to the 2016 GOP nomination in 2016, repeating over and over and over that candidate Trump was a fascist. But SPAM quickly segued alongside the Trump campaign after Trump got the nomination, thus joining his acclaimed fascist. SPAM stopped his fascist claims of Trump because of SPAM's "standards."

Those interested might take a look at Paul Krugman's NYTimes column post online 8/27/18 "Why It Can Happen Here, We’re very close to becoming another Poland or Hungary" on the subject fascism. Perhaps SPAM was prescient when he warned us while serving on the Cruz Canadacy that Trump was indeed a fascist. Perhaps SPAM has no problem any longer with fascism with the Bunds-ilk libertarians at his back.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:29 AM

Shag:

Like your mentor, Krugman, you have no understanding of the fascist flavor of modern totalitarianism.

Candidate Donald did run a fascist campaign, offering himself as the leader who could stop the corrupt elites and make the nation great again. However, with the exception of the welfare state, POTUS Trump has governed is a remarkably libertarian manner, reversing much of the totalitarianism (fascism, if you prefer) of the Obama regime.

Like all the other flavors of totalitarianism, fascism governs primarily through decrees issued by an absolute bureaucracy seeking to direct the economy and redistribute wealth. Trump has enjoyed remarkable success curbing or entirely reversing key parts of the Obama bureaucratic decrees.

In the American system, our totalitarian political economy relies upon a a compliant judiciary willing to rewrite the law to rubber stamp progressive policy. Trump is appointing constitutionalist judges to the bench at a record rate, many of who are openly skeptical of the free reign previous courts have granted the absolute bureaucracy.

Finally, instead of cowering like the GOP establishment, Trump publicly engages the political weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence gathering, which corruptly defends the political royalty from the law, while launching legally baseless attacks on political opponents.

Far from establishing a fascist state, Trump is arguably reversing one.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:01 AM

SPAM argues the absurd with his closing at 11:01 AM:

"Far from establishing a fascist state, Trump is arguably reversing one."

SPAM's penultimate [still my favorite word] but confusing paragraph suggests that SPAM does not understand the oath SPAM took as a lawyer regarding the Constitution. SPAM has swallowed the Trumpade lock, stock and barrel.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:36 AM

BD: "Far from establishing a fascist state, Trump is arguably reversing one."

Shag: SPAM's penultimate [still my favorite word] but confusing paragraph suggests that SPAM does not understand the oath SPAM took as a lawyer regarding the Constitution.

Ummm... You mean the Constitution which as written expressly prohibits most of our totalitarian political economy?

I'm pretty sure I am fulfilling my military and then attorney oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

As for the progressive attorneys here...

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:44 PM

I picture SPAM in a lotus position:

"Ummm... You mean the Constitution which as written expressly prohibits most of our totalitarian political economy?"

in his feeble attempt to respond in the form of a question that refers to "most of our totalitarian political economy" but without disclosing or identifying what such consists of. Off hand, SPAM may be trying to demonstrate his "master debating" skills. If it's SPAM's alleged "compliant judiciary," the judicial systems are quite extensive, both at the federal and state levels. Perhaps SPAM's local police court in which he practices might wish to know if SPAM is referring to that court; or perhaps other courts in CO. Or is it SCOTUS, or other parts of the federal judicial system? SPAM smears with a broad brush, but like his now "anti-fascist" hero Donald Trump, SPAM just smears. Perhaps another hero of Spam is the late Roy Cohn.
"

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:15 PM

Shag: ...refers to "most of our totalitarian political economy" but without disclosing or identifying what such consists of.

Every single totalitarian political economy (socialist, fascist and progressive) shares the following elements:

1) Unlimited Government - Refusal to recognize natural or constitutional limits on government powers, most especially the progressive legal class.

2) Absolute Bureaucracy - An executive bureaucracy exercising absolute power - legislative, executive and judicial - by decree.

3) Directing the Economy - Outside of regulation of the trade in goods and services, bankruptcy and copyrights, our federal government has no power to direct the economy.

4) Redistribution of Wealth - The entire concept of government redistribution of wealth through a progressively punitive tax code and a means tested welfare state is an assault on equal protection of the laws.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:29 PM

SPAM continues to evade with his recitations at 1:29 PM. SPAM has a broad definition of what, in his mind, constitutes a "totalitarian political economy. Which one is "our [America's] totalitarian political economy" of SPAM's "J'Accuse"? Perhaps what's in SPAM's mind may be revealed by SPAM's occasional self-description as an "anarcho-libertarian." Or maybe SPAM can identify when America was not a "utilitarian political economy. Based upon past experiences with SPAM at this Blog, SPAM's response may be the original "The Gilded Age" of the late 19th century. Is that the same as Trump's MAGA?

So, if America is a "totalitarian political economy" which is in violation of the Constitution, what is he doing to fulfill his oath as a lawyer to defend the Constitution? By making plea deals for alleged drunks in his rural police court? Preparing under his "absolute" version of the 2nd A to challenge governments, federal and/or state, via his local ad hack [sic] militia?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 3:00 PM

Shag: SPAM has a broad definition of what, in his mind, constitutes a "totalitarian political economy. Which one is "our [America's] totalitarian political economy" of SPAM's "J'Accuse"?

The US has adopted all of the elements of totalitarianism. What American totalitarians call progressivism is in fact an imporation of Bismarck’s “state socialism,” socialism and fascism. In fact, progressivism, socialsm and fascism share more than what separates them, which is why I stopped using these terms and now refer to them all as totalitarianism. One ism to rule them all.

Perhaps what's in SPAM's mind may be revealed by SPAM's occasional self-description as an "anarcho-libertarian."

Once again, this was your description of Brett which you have transferred to me. I never refer to myself as an anarchist. I will leave that to the socialist thugs like Antifa who embrace the mantle.

Or maybe SPAM can identify when America was not a "utilitarian political economy.

Utilitarianism are policies which benefit the most people. Classical liberalism/libertarianism which allows people to live their lives as they choose so long as they do not harm others is the only political economy which fits this definition. Classical liberalism has given way to totalitarianiism for over a century now.

Based upon past experiences with SPAM at this Blog, SPAM's response may be the original "The Gilded Age" of the late 19th century. Is that the same as Trump's MAGA?

Do you realize that if we mainatined a free economy and its historically high productivity growth, we all would be more than twice as wealthy than we are today. The math of compound interest is inexorable.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:47 PM

SPAM attacks progressives and what he describes as the "compliant judiciary" in his tirade on "our [America's] totalitarian political economy." SPAM dwells in the past with his regurgitations of The Gilded Age of the late 19th century featuring the Robber Barons as America's best days. And he eventually gets into "classical liberalism." Let's advance this aspect of this thread.

The Huffington Post featured a political article by Zach Carteer on August 19, 2018 with the interesting title "For Fancy Racists, Classical Liberalism Offers Respect, Intrigue" available at:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/racists-classical-liberalism-classic-rock-fraud_us_5b6b232ee4b0fd5c73dff019

Conservatives and libertarians toss out "classical liberalism" in challenging current day liberals and progressives, showing their support for "classical liberalism" and distinguishing it from current day liberalism/progressivism that they sometimes refer to as the "S" word, which can be extended to the "C" word. Conservatives and libertarians rely upon John Stuart Mill, John Locke and Adam Smith. Here's a tease paragraph from the article:

"Alas, the term 'classical liberal' would have been novel to Smith, Locke or Mill. Mill called himself a socialist, Locke called for a state ban on Catholicism, and Smith favored all manner of encroachments against the free market. The corporate radio gurus of political theory ― Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman ― popularized the notion that these thinkers represent a coherent, libertarian-esque school of thought in the 20th century."

So I imagine that SPAM in the few hours before this thread enters into moderation and the archives, will frantically search his personal trolling archives for his pat comments on "classical liberalism" and America's good old days, none of which he has lived through. SPAM has put his faith in his former fascist Trump to bring back those good old days. We've got a heat wave here so I have to cool down with the bedroom AC watching geezer TV.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:48 PM