Momentary Hope for Straight Conservatives?

[_Droopy]

And, of course, what Johnnie really means by "constitutional construction" is nothing more than generations of case law and the general trajectory of interpretation and precedent derived from it, which is, for all intents, the real effective arbiter of constitutional interpretation, not the original intent and understanding of its authors.

The "living" constitution is, of course, the negation of the concept, which is why a pitiful miasma of intellectual slapstick like gay marriage can even see the light of day in an intellectual environment in which the "living" constitution concept has gained dominance as judicial radical chic.

[_Dr. Shades]

The Supremes will not consider a DOMA ruling till Monday. Not too late to slip in some earnest prayers in the meantime and ask God to send the Supremes a state of stupor rather than bosom burning.

Has Gladys Knight consulted with her former bandmates about their upcoming task?

[_Darth J]

Anyway, Droopy, suppose you articulate in your own words what the two primary challenges to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act are, and what the constitutional bases for each of those issues are.

Also, would you be willing to cite a case from the U.S. Supreme Court whose holding depends on a living Constitution theory, and contrast the Court's reasoning in that case with a holding based on textual originalism?

Here, I'll give you a head start: Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)

Is the application of the Fourth Amendment to thermal imaging devices that did not exist in 1791 an example of a living Constitution, or textual originalism?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

By the way, there is no single "living Constitution" theory of constitutional interpretation, and there is a great deal of legal scholarship to support the conclusion that self-described "textual originalism" is in fact another form of a living Constitution, only with more sanctimonious pretensions.

But of course you knew that already, just as you knew that Robert Bork explicitly called for censorship of movies that are mere rhapsodies to violence.

[_Darth J]

And, of course, what Johnnie really means by "constitutional construction" is nothing more than generations of case law and the general trajectory of interpretation and precedent derived from it, which is, for all intents, the real effective arbiter of constitutional interpretation, not the original intent and understanding of its authors.

Droopy, I want to know where the text of the Constitution states how the text of the Constitution should be interpreted. Thanks in advance for showing me where I can find this.

The "living" constitution is, of course, the negation of the concept, which is why a pitiful miasma of intellectual slapstick like gay marriage can even see the light of day in an intellectual environment in which the "living" constitution concept has gained dominance as judicial radical chic.

Droopy, I would like to know what legal rights and duties of the childless, geriatric marriage between Dallin H. Oaks and his current wife could not be performed by two people of the same sex. Please list them here, and feel free to add more numbers if you find that there are more than 5 such legal rights or duties that depend on the parties to the marriage being of the opposite sex:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

[_EAllusion]

There are plenty of left/liberal orginalists and textualists (especially the latter). These are apolitical modes of constitutional interpretation after all.

As you continue to pretend behind an anonymous moniker that you are some kind of "libertarian," let alone a serious political or philosophical thinker (apolitical? The really megalithic, provocative whoppers are still the best, D) you may want to adjust your cheesy rubber monster suit just to make sure the zipper isn't showing.

Describing living constitutionalism as the mode of constitutional interpretation of the left, despite numerous left-leaning thinkers not being living constitutionalists is quite the conundrum to get out of. Your strategy, it would seem, is to laugh uproariously at the idea that various broad categories of constitutional interpretation are essentially apolitical given that they are held across the political spectrum and used to support a diverse body of political outcomes. So now you've got two indefensible things to defend. Or deflect in your case, I guess.

The problem is that your familiarity with this topic probably doesn't go deeper than a vague understanding from reading people who want you to think that originalism is a means to get conservative political outcomes you prefer and that living constitutionalism is a means to get liberal political outcomes you would not prefer. It plays into a false notion that you as a conservative are loyal to some bedrock authority that confirms your preferences that evil leftists want to prevert by apostatizing from at their convenience. Though neither is a magic formula for deducing modern policy preferences of conservatives or liberals, that's the shallow discourse driving your uninformed comments here.

[_huckelberry]

Supremes, Diana Ross, trivia coming to mind while awaiting the orangutang interview.

[_Brackite]

There was not any Supreme Court ruling on DOMA and/or Proposition 8 today. However, The Supreme Court ruled today on Arizona's Proposition 200 passed back in 2004.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 7-11-01-58

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/ ... K720130617

[_bcspace]

Everything's unconstitutional, or constitutional...today, and unconstitutional or constitutional...tomorrow.

Its a "living" constitution, remember?

Heck, at this rate they might even bring in some precedent or tradition from an ancient society on the island of Lesbos.

[_moksha]

Heck, at this rate they might even bring in some precedent or tradition from an ancient society on the island of Lesbos.

A fuller restoration of all things, eh?




Shades, both the Supremes and the Pips anxiously await this decision:

[_Darth J]

Everything's unconstitutional, or constitutional...today, and unconstitutional or constitutional...tomorrow.

Its a "living" constitution, remember?

Heck, at this rate they might even bring in some precedent or tradition from an ancient society on the island of Lesbos.

bcspace, in your own words, please explain what exactly is at issue in United States v. Windsor, and your understanding of what the respondent's argument is.