Sunday, July 20, 2014

Oh look another "X wants to reclaim the constitution"

So I've been seeing this article floating around and now it's in the WaPo.

How liberals can reclaim the Constitution

(I'm sure it's a coincidence that this is written by a guy hawking his book  on "Living Originalism")

What's fascinating is that it's just advice on Liberals to simply claim the constitution.   It boils down to "Hey remember civil rights and women's suffrage!"  And "The constitution is more than just the actual text and what judges say!"

So...  in other words.  Ignore that the amendment process was key in civil rights and women's suffrage  and keep pretending that the Constitution means "Laws we want are not just acceptable but mandatory!"

Basically this guy is going "Nu-uh! That the Constitution can change to mean whatever we want it to mean IS the real origininalism!"

Which is...  different from the status quo... how?

Though this is a huge admission of defeat: "Second, to better understand how the Constitution actually grows and develops, liberal scholars have turned away from the courts and judicial review — now the focus of conservative obsession — and toward the work of ordinary citizens and political movements."

It's not a wise idea to cede the courts and judicial review.

Course the article is full of paranoia about "Oligarchy" (but is oddly silent on how to *deal* with that problem) , and it weaves a conspiracy theory that somehow it was Conservatives who *tricked* liberals into abandoning Constitutional fealty.

And the guy ends by using examples of passed amendments to show how legitimate "Living Constitution" is.
I wonder if he's aware that Originalists don't actually thing amendments aren't legitimate.

I know he *is* aware that the biggest point of the Living Constitution view is that you don't *need* Amendments. That's um... kind of the whole point.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

It's not just Diversity of *thought* that is eliminated due to these policies...


Related: Education is Producing a Nationwide Gentrification Effect. “The larger the share of a city’s workforce that’s made up of college graduates, the more expensive it is to live there.” And yet education is pushed as a cure for economic inequality.
Via Glenn Reynolds.

It's no stranger than how states with bigger "Blue State" policies have more inequality.  Course you can have a fun time looking at the causality in that codependent relationship.

Friday, July 18, 2014

There's a reason the Democratic Party doesn't normally put these party planks *next* to each other.

So ABC has their own List Post.  5 Things Liberals Really want out of the Obama Presidency

And the only thing surprising is that parts 4 and 5 are next to each other:

4. Gun Violence Prevention5. Voting Rights

And by four they mean "expanded background checks"  which really means a private sale ban.   And by 5 they mean "invalidate Section IV of the Voting Rights Act" which really means "Voter ID is racist!"

Okay, so if Voter ID is racist due to the disproportionate impact ID requirement on poor and minorities...

How are expanded background checks for guns not racist? They're literally proposing a law to make it impossible to legally buy a gun without presenting ID.

While at the exact same time saying a less stringent requirement is unacceptable because it's racist.

I suppose their argument is  "voter fraud never killed anyone", what but that's really saying is "Racist laws are okay if they keep those people from getting guns."

See, this is why the Democratic Party normally has a bit of daylight between these two issues.