A “Living” Constitution.. ??? REALLY THE FLAWED INTERPRETATION AT OUR CONSTITUTION BY OBAMA, SOROS, AND THE DEMOCRAT COMMUNISTS. So we need to fix that flaw. RRR. Get rid of all these interlopers like Gorge Soros, The Kenyan, The Lefty Judges and the DEMOCRAT COMMUNIST PARTY. With fidelity to his “open society” tenet that truth is an ever-evolving and ever-elusive concept, George Soros firmly rejects the notion that the U.S. Constitution is a document of unique or unrivaled merit¯or, by logical extension, that its original intent must be permanently revered and adhered to, rather than deconstructed or reinterpreted as the changing needs and preferences of the times may dictate. In April 2005, Soros’s Open Society Institute was a leading financial sponsor of a Yale Law School conference called “The Constitution in 2020,” promoted as an effort to produce “a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.” Other major sponsors of the event included the American Constitution Society and the Center for American Progress¯both major recipients of Soros funding. Speakers at the conference repeatedly stressed the “evolutionary character of constitutional law”¯a premise crucial to the work of anyone who, like Soros, seeks to fundamentally transform a society. Barack Obama, who himself has openly vowed to “fundamentally transform” the United States, shares precisely this same view of the Constitution. In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote that the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” Moreover, he asserted that, if elected to the White House, he would not appoint a strict constructionist — one who seeks to apply the Constitution’s text as it is written and without further inference — to the Supreme Court. True to his word, President Obama has thus far appointed two Supreme Court Justices – Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – both of whom reject strict constructionism. Sotomayor, for her part, is an advocate of legal realism, which the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) describes as a judicial philosophy that is “diametrically opposed to the concept of strict construction/originalism as advocated by conservative legal thinkers and judges.” TVC adds that according to legal realism: “Judges should do more than interpret the law or look to the original intent of the writers of the law or the Constitution. Judges should bring in outside influences from social sciences, psychology and politics, plus their own views, to craft the law….” Suggesting that the public wrongly expects “the law to be static and predictable,” Sotomayor contends that courts and lawyers are “constantly overhauling the laws and adapting it [sic] to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.” Meanwhile, Elena Kagan has approvingly cited former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall’s assertion that the Constitution, “as originally drafted and conceived,” was “defective SO YOU STILL WANT TO CO_EXIST ??? YOU THINK YOU CAN ??? I now am convinced there is a FLAW in our Constitution... It allows it to be destroyed from within.. THAT IS A FLAW!! Programed self destruction ??? Come on... R-R -R Time to fix the flaws too!!
Posted on: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:46:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015