Rep. Lauren Boebert received a free lesson in U.S. history after posting her latest tweet about the Constitution.
Quote:
“The Constitution is not evolving,” she wrote on Twitter. “To say that spits in the face of every single one of our founders.”
Unquote:
In reality, the framers of the Constitution not only wrote it so that it could evolve, via amendments, but began using that process almost immediately with the passage of the Bill of Rights.
The constitution can be amended by 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and ratified by 3/4 of the States.
We have a lot of qualified lawyers on this board who can speak to how the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the constitution. In that area I am way out of my depth.
Ms. Boebert is wrong we have had 27 amendments. The last one of any significance was in 1971 (gave the right to vote to 18 year olds).
The Amendment process certainly allows it to evolve.
Our Court system seeks to “interpret” our Constitution. What did our Legislators really mean when they wrote their words and how does that apply to a dispute between various parties.
In what context did she say that?
Was talking about the Filibuster, 2nd amendment? Instead of a snapshot I would like to read the entire exchange and the full context of it. She knows full well that amendments happen and have happened.
Furthermore the writer’s term EXTREMIST is highly offensive and obviously biased. That alone depicts someone that is not a journalist but an opinion feeder.
The Constitution can indeed evolve, VIA AMENDMENTS.
The problem is that there are a number of activist appeals court justices that want it to evolve in a different way: through CASE LAW.
Sometimes, justices have been known to find things to be Constitutional rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution, and which would not have been within the reasonable contemplation of any of the people that wrote the Constitution as being a protected Constitutional right.
I realize there’s that whole 9th amendment thing, but again, you have to ask, “would the Founding Fathers have considered it to be an unalienable right, protected by the Constitution, and reserved to the people?” If the answer is no, then that’s how the Court should rule on the issue.
Unfortunately, quite often, in the case many issues that are near and dear to the Left, the USSC and other courts have taken a different approach. They have ruled things to be Constitutional rights which are are not enumerated in the Constitution, and which no Founding Father would have imagined would be protected by the document.
It can evolve thru amendments like stated and also thru how judges interpret it. Left wing judges will try to interpret it more liberally , where as republican judges will most often stick to a conservative view or what it specifically says.
I agree with you but , you know , it’s comments like that , or responses to comments like that that causes sh.t storms to erupt and cause wholesome, meaningful and timely discussions to go down the toilet.
With all due respect and bathroom humor not necessarily intended.
I’m not exactly sure that’s true. Every Justice, from Thomas to Ginsburg, from Marshall to Roberts make decisions based on their philosophy AND the philosophy of those they are beholden to.
Here is one example where one can say it’s a both sides problem. I think it’s more of a problem with one side, in my most human opinion. I honestly don’t know if there is a liberal equivalent to the Heritage Foundation though.
Excellent question! I went back to look and it seems like she was just ranting on Twitter. I could be wrong. If it was about the filibuster, there is nothing in Constitution about it and that’s all I’ll say about that.
I think she might have been reacting to the notion that the Constitution is set in stone, in which case (snarks aside) the reactions she got were well deserved.
Context is everything. It is the job of the so called journalist to explain and let us know with facts what the context was. He failed at both. Instead he wrote that she is an EXTREMIST With this type of reporting we wonder why people get “jacked up” Was the writer trying to create “traffic”?
This is for norbert:
This is from her own biography:
“Her senior year of high school, she earned an opportunity to serve as an assistant manager at her local McDonald’s. She made the difficult decision to drop out of school to help put food on her family’s table, realizing she could provide better for herself than the government ever could”
Yes indeed she dropped of H.S. Do you now understand why norbert?
How dare she?
There was no context that I saw. It was a tweet out of nowhere, unless I’m mistaken.
Yes, the notion the US Constitution can’t evolve seems “extremist” to me. Dred Scott, Plessy and hopefully soon Citizens United are offered as examples.
”, more or less.