Original Expediency

Persistent and perceptive readers will have detected a periodic ennui in these pages regarding the US Constitution. That Madisonian melancholia is less an indictment of the document itself than it is the broad belief in its almost supernatural powers. As I’ve mentioned many times, if our constitution is actually what makes our country, then Liberians must be quite impatient for its transformative effects in theirs.

But that isn’t to say it’s not a fine specimen of what it’s intended to be. That is, a governmental org-chart with job descriptions. And once you understand that relatively modest ambition, you’ll understand why even an excellent charter doesn’t cause a society of mestizos and muslims to live like one of angles and saxons. This in much the same way Chucky Cheese won’t make as much money as Apple, even if their corporate hierarchies are identical. Yet there’s a remarkable number of intelligent people who implicitly believe otherwise.

Though it’s not merely placing a document in context of its actual powers. Almost as if it were a piece of impressionist art, the Constitution is more like a mirror than a window. With readers routinely seeing only their own desires reflected in its penumbras. And that’s a real problem when one of those people get a black robe tossed over their head. A problem for us more than them, invariably.

That problem arising from the fact that the actual Constitution is largely results agnostic. Many amendments require or prohibit certain results, though amendments themselves are creatures of this very neutral process. A process that, if followed to the letter, does not in any way prohibit results that are unpalatable to liberals. Until Anthony Kennedy says otherwise, an amendment to the Constitution can not be unconstitutional…Except in India.

Though while reading an opinion piece today by AIPAC-American esquire, Cass Sunstein, it occurred to me, as I’m sure it must have previously, that the left actually sees the Constitution as results determinative. It’s not an org-chart, but a to-do list.

In the piece Cass, who was apparently given that name on purpose, takes a dim view of Scalia’s (and by extension Neil Gorsuch’s) originalist approach. Not because it fails any rational scrutiny, but because it could fail to produce liberal results. This, in a formidable display of unselfconsciousness, Sunstein calls “unprincipled.”

But originalism is just one of many possible approaches to the Constitution. If it is taken seriously, there is a good argument that it would produce results that most Americans would despise — and that any Trump nominee should be asked about.
For example, originalism could easily lead to the following conclusions:

* States can ban the purchase and sale of contraceptives.

* The federal government can discriminate on the basis of race — for example, by banning African Americans from serving in the armed forces, or by mandating racial segregation in the D.C. schools.

* The federal government can discriminate against women — for example, by banning them from serving in high-level positions in the U.S. government.

* States are permitted to bring back segregation, and they can certainly discriminate on the basis of sex.

* Neither federal nor state governments have to respect the idea of one person, one vote; some people could be given far more political power than others.

* States can establish Christianity as their official religion.

* Important provisions of national environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, are invalid.

Certainly the founders would never have countenanced a system by which important provisions of environmental laws could be invalidated. But beyond the fact that the federal government already discriminates extensively on the basis of race without complaint from Sunstein, there’s the ludicrous proposition that the foundational basis of this country exists only as an expedient to contemporary and beyond liberalism. Thus you can’t take the words of the constitution literally because Kansans might ban the pill. Yes they might. And they were explicitly granted the right to make that decision. Self-rule is always most fervently opposed by those who advocate themselves-rule.

And of course it’s simply beyond neo-Bolshevik conception that empowered opposition could wield the same legal philosophy against them: if the results are ones many Americans would despise (like aggressive Muslim colonization) then whatever process facilitated that result (like non-European immigration) is unconstitutional. So playing by the rules is tossed in favor of playing by the results. A lot more people on the right could stand to absorb Sunstein’s lesson.

Would I bullshit you?

Would I bullshit you?

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Original Expediency

  1. Pingback: Expedient Originalism | Reaction Times

  2. There is only on race, the cat race. Therefore we can expect the same result if little Tommy plays with a tabby cat or a Siberian tiger. It’s just racist to say otherwise.

    Upon this house of sand multiculturalism was built.

  3. You are guys are evil and will be defeated. You complain about “violence” but are silent about right wingers lik Dylan Roof and the quebec white supremacist guy

    You guys are unappealing. That’s why you don’t have kids and don’t get women

    Look who is against you: blacks, asains, jews muslims, homosexuals, women, latinos

    The ONLY people supporting you are right wing white Christian males

    That less 5% of the worlds population

    Look at the Berkley protests. We are going the ash you fascists into oblivion. Free speech doesn’t mean hate speech. We will not tolerate intolerance.

    Death to you and your racist friends and ideology

    • Wow, you must have gotten up sooo early to get this out. Like what, ten!!!

      Thank you for your personal, selfless and heroic sacrifice in the Struggle.

    • We don’t care what you think anymore Tiny.
      It does’t matter if you say we and our White Christian culture, virtues, and principles don’t count.
      You and your ideology are irrelevant.
      We don’t need you.
      You and your ilk offer nothing.
      The moment you opened your mouth we already won.
      You don’t scare us.
      Your words are but poison.
      Your violence and hate are on you.
      So go ahead, try us like you threaten to do.

    • The difference between the “left” & “right” is that the left only care about White girls being raped in Rotherham by Paks if it affects their votes. The right just care anyway.

      It’s not something you could understand.

    • Let’s not forget your Jew kith & kin (if that’s what you are) who are organising the world’s first genocide of an entire race of people, monster:

      * “If a ‘goy’ (Gentile) hits a Jew he must be killed.” (Sanhedrin 58b)

      * “If a Jew finds an object lost by a ‘goy’ it does not have to be returned.” (Baba Mezia 24a)

      * “If a Jew murders a ‘goy’ there will be no death penalty.” (Sanhedrin 57a)

      * What a Jew steals from a ‘goy’ he may keep.” (Sanhedrin 57a)

      * “Jews may use subterfuges to circumvent a ‘goy.’” (Baba Kamma 113a)

      * “All children of the ‘goyim’ (Gentiles) are animals.” (Yebamoth 98a)

      * “Girls born of the ‘goyim’ are in a state of ‘niddah’ (menstrual uncleanness!) from birth.” (Abodah Zarah 36b)

      * “The ‘goyim’ are not humans. They are beasts.” (Baba Mezia 114b)

      * “If you eat with a ‘goy’ it is the same as eating with a dog.” (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)

      * “Even the best of the ‘goyim’ should all be killed.” (Soferim 15)

      * “Sexual intercourse between the ‘goyim’ is like intercourse between animals.” (Sanhedrin 74b)

      * “When it comes to a Gentile in peace times, one may harm him indirectly, for instance, by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice.” (Shulkan Arukh, Yoreh De ‘ah, 158, Hebrew Edition only)

      * “‘Yashu’ (derogatory for ‘Jesus’) is in Hell being boiled in hot excrement.” (Gittin 57a)

      [’Yashu’ is an acronym for the Jewish curse, ‘May his (Jesus) name be wiped out forevermore.’]

      * Yashu (Jesus) was sexually immoral and worshipped a brick.” (Sanhedrin 107b)

      * “Yashu (Jesus) was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refused to repent.” (Sotah 47a)

      * “Miriam the hairdresser had sex with many men.” (Shabbath 104b, Hebrew Edition only)

      * “She who was the descendant of princes and governors (the virgin Mary) played the harlot with carpenters.” (Sanhedrin 106a)

      * “Christians who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.” (Rosh Hashanah 17a)

      It seems you are in good company with Muslims Diny Tuck.

    • Thanks Tiny. You are right.
      It’s not fair. Why do so many people hate white people? I never did anything to anybody!

  4. ChuckECheese is hampered by the same afflictions as Liberia, at least in my area of the country. Well, maybe a little less Ebola, but on the same scales they’re not experiencing air Jordan riots in Monrovia.

  5. He was one of my law school professors and as much a cunt in real life as he appears in this article. His whole schtick is to make the simple seem more complex than it is, so that he can then say anything’s possible, especially what he wants. He’s smart, but deceptive and unwise. And he’s incredibly in love with himself.

    • Do you ever wish you could get a refund for the degenerate nonsense they passed off as being legitimate academic legal theory? I’m going to be a debt slave for life because I too made the mistake of believing “law” to be a noble and bonfafide profession, when in reality the schools are communist cesspools. Even caveat emptor allows the aggrieved some reprieve, but why can’t I declare bankruptcy and discharge the debts associated with a bad bag of smelly Jewish shit called higher education and law school while shitskins from other countries get loans to start subway franchises, buy hotels, and kwiky marts?

  6. As near as I can tell the actual constitution disappeared under a pile of opinions about what it “really” means. Isn’t “constitutional law” a study of the opinions about the constitution and then about the opinions about the opinions and so on ad infinitum? Eventually even the most sea worthy vessel will be dragged under by the weight of barnacles encrusted one layer on another with never an effort to scrape them off. I mean we now have opinions piled on top of opinions that were formed by divining the meaning of the “emanations” and “penumbras” radiating from the old parchment. Which sort of adds weight to the idea that it is in some way a supernatural artifact.

  7. As usual, Porter brings clarity to my own muddled thoughts; that Chucky Cheese analogy is brilliant. I will use that in my ongoing efforts to edge my normie acquaintances towards Hate.

    Thanks.

  8. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2017/02/05) - Social Matter

  9. Pingback: Ought v. Is – waka waka waka

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s