So who is "willing to blatantly disregard the law"?
"Congress shall make no law regarding ..."
If a law is passed that restricts liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, then Congress itself is acting illegally. Anyone who proposes such legislation, and anyone who votes in favor of such legislation, should certainly be punished.
I think you mean that your interpretation of the constitution is "right" and anyone who wants to use the power for other goals is "wrong."
The Constitution is there to limit the power of government. The founders' writings state as much, and much of the language of the document itself, especially in regards to the Bill of Rights, make it plain that government should have limited power. That government today has the "power" to affect society in the way that it does is a shameful, disgraceful failing on our part, and on the part of our ancestors who allowed it to happen.
Many Supreme Court Justices believe that the pursuit of higher moral goals is the intent of the constitution.
Then, these Supreme Court justices are wrong. The intent of the Constitution, as it plainly states in its own language, and in the writings of its authors, is to limit the power of government.
It is just deciding what kind of country we want, and the contitiution allows us to decide that during any given age, and then change it later.
I, for one, want a free country, like the founders wanted for themselves and their progeny (us). In point of fact, I have no problem with altering the Constitution, provided we do it by the means and methods laid out in said document. Or, we could hold a Constitutional Convention to draft a new Constitution for our self-governance. If we follow such a course of action, however, and the resulting document is one which fails to safeguard my liberty as well as, or better than, the current Constitution, I will fight it - with arms, if necessary.
Passing a new law to change an old law is not a "blatant lack of regard for any old laws that might prevent such actions."
But it is. Repealing old laws, and passing new ones in their stead would be the way to properly legislate. The situation created by simply passing new law after new law results in most people being in violation of some law, somewhere, without any knowledge of the fact. While "ignorance of the law is no excuse", contradictory laws creating a situation in which you cannot help but be criminal is insane. When is the last time you heard of a law being repealed?
One huge problem facing us as a society today is the power of the President to rule the country by fiat. The "executive order" is a travesty, and every executive order, from the first to the last, should be repealed. If some are actually good, legislate them via the correct processes. The methods are all laid out - why don't we use them?
So we'll see. My guess is that this bascially fundamentalist way of reading the text is much like the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible. Something restricted to the sparsely populated regions of the US, and only of consequence because of the terrible error of overrepresenting this minority in the electoral college and in the Senate.
I'll assume, by this statement, that you are in favor of a liberal interpretation of the powers of government laid out by the Constitution? I'd support you, except that the intent of those who wrote the document is clearly otherwise.
The real litmus test should be: does this new law in any way restrict my liberties as plainly (but not exclusively) enumerated in the Constitution? If so, then the law is invalid. Prior restraint on free speech, gun control, no-knock searches, wiretaps... all of these things are fundamentally illegal when the light of the Constitution is shone upon them.
i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.
[ Parent ]