DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> PELICANPOST.BLOGSPOT.COM: Jonah Goldberg: On Democrats' conundrum about their perpetually-morphing "living" Constitution vs. a "dead," interpret-as-written Constitution....

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Jonah Goldberg: On Democrats' conundrum about their perpetually-morphing "living" Constitution vs. a "dead," interpret-as-written Constitution....

Readers, this is a *****Five Star, must read column by Jonah Goldberg, published today at nationalreview. Goldberg, in his usual on-target humor, characterizes the flip-flopping and convoluted conundrum of Democrats that results from their having to keep changing their pretzel-like philosophy on the meaning and elasticity of the U.S. Constitution---according to whether Democrats or Republicans are in control in Washington, D.C.

Included is a great demonstration of the metamorphosis of fire-and-global-warming Al Gore's conflicting and perpetually-morphing positions, as he espouses a "dead" Constitution when it suits his party's purpose and a "living and breathing" Constitution when Democrats are experiencing constricted sphincters due to a Republican president being the resident-in-chief at the White House.

You can read selected excerpts below, but the link above takes you to the entire well-worth-taking-the-time-to-read piece.
__________
"Dead or Alive?The Left’s constitutional issues."

"Not long ago, liberals were telling us that such dead white men from the 18th century had nothing to teach us in a high-tech, globalized economy. But now that the White House is "adapting" and "evolving" in the face of an enemy that is using high technology and loopholes of globalization unimaginable to the founders in order to kill us, the hip modernists want to go back to the horse-and-buggy age.

Now, none of this speaks to the merits — or even the constitutionality — of Bush's wiretapping. On the merits, the practice itself makes so much sense that even Democrats are terrified to denounce it. Instead, they claim — with some plausibility — that the White House simply cannot wiretap unilaterally, even when the communications involve a person overseas. That's a good fight to take to the Supreme Court and the American people in both 2006 and 2008...."

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home