Maggie's Farm

No, what it really means is that the first formulation was improperly worded, as B. Moe noted. The Democrats hate the idea of a constitutional republic, which is what the founders envisioned as a way of limiting government overreach and protecting individual liberty. The Democrats know that they can best expand and hold on to power through dishonest demagoguery and through convincing different coalitions that they need to see themselves in terms of collectives and vote accordingly.

I said the idea of a "constitutional republic," not the idea of "constitutional government." My evidence for that is simply the sort of jurists they choose and endorse for the Supreme Court, people who like to talk about a "living constitution," who think there is value in citing foreign precedent for domestic legal cases, and who go abroad and talk about how outdated and poorly conceived our constitution is. In other words, they don't like the constitution we've got and would prefer to read it and interpret it in their image.

Zachriel wrote: That is correct, however, all your points below refer only to the constitutional framework, not the republican nature of the constitution.

Well, if you'd like an example of how the Democrats subvert the republican nature of the constitution, one need look no further than the current administration's war on voter ID laws at the same time it declares that it will not enforce existing immigration laws and it carves out a new residence status for illegal immigrants under the age of 30.

And that is but one example. Then there is the Fast and Furious scandal and the lying to congress and stonewalling investigation into the matter by suddenly declaring executive privilege. Or there is the matter of the "recess appointments" when the senate wasn't actually in recess. And then there is the whole matter of individuals who critique the president or who donate to his political opponents suddenly being subject to IRS audits. Or how about the manner in which the Democrat-controlled senate continually shirks its responsibility to pass a budget, as it has done for more than three years now.

Zachriel wrote: Do you think that being secure from the government in your "papers" doesn't include email? Or do you read the word papers in its antique sense.

This is a minor example which you no doubt chose because it is within the realm of what most people would accept as a "reasonable" interpretation. What I was referring to, however, was the invention of whole areas of constitutional interpretation out of thin air because some judge thought he or she detected something in the "emanations" of a "penumbra."

Zachriel wrote: As the U.S. inherited common law, those precedents do matter. Also, courts can refer to reasoning by foreign courts without being bound by that reasoning, as opposed to being influenced the power of the reasoning. If a judge found reasoning about a case that made sense within U.S. law, they not only should use that reasoning, but cite it. This is especially important in cases that involve international treaties.

Once again you are pettifogging by referring first to "inherited common law" precedent, and then to international treaties. What I was referring to was the practice that we have seen on occasion in recent years of judges who find rationales for their decisions in domestic (i.e. not international) cases in sources such as UN declarations and foreign laws. Below is an article referring to several such controversial cases. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506232/ns/politics-tom_curry/t/flap-over-foreign-matter-supreme-court/#.UClfYU1lRWY

Finally, with regard to your last point, the proper way to update the constitution is through amendment, which requires meeting a significant threshold for approval; it is not through judicial fiat simply because justices Breyer, Ginsburg or Kagan decide they have "discovered" something new in the "living" constitution.

You can keep rambling on, but your rationalizations for the behavior of the Democrats and their enablers on the courts aren't convincing me, nor, I imagine, anyone else. In the age of Obama, Democrat politicians are pretty much focused on the expansion of government at all levels with an aim towards insuring their continued grip on power. They seek to foster dependence on government, and they promote collective identity as a way of diminishing the appeal of individualism and discouraging dissent. At the same time, they do what they can to promote voter fraud.