The Constitution: You’re readin’ it wrong

This seemed timely given recent comments by the President and Justice Ginsburg minimizing the importance and value of our amazing Constitution.  One of the obvious things that Liberals miss is that if they don’t like what is in the Constitution they are welcome to have it changed — provided that they go through the process outlined in the document.  But that is hard work, so they just “amend” it by fiat.  They pretend that because it is old and imperfect that they can just ignore it.  Such people are unfit for public service.

Matt made an excellent point in a comment with the first item, so I thought I’d see what else people might think of.  If anyone thinks Conservatives are inconsistent on the Constitution they are welcome to offer examples, but be sure to support them with facts and logic.

Liberals think the Constitution enshrines the right of a woman to have her innocent but unwanted unborn child destroyed, but not to protect that same life with a firearm.

Liberals think the Constitution has a right to “same-sex marriage” but not a right to criticize the concept (“Haters!  Hate speech!”).

Have fun!

4 thoughts on “The Constitution: You’re readin’ it wrong”

  1. Hmm. This might mean allowing visits by some who feel they aren’t welcome. Hopefully, you won’t have a problem with this if they support their examples. I can’t wait to see what is offered!

    Like

  2. I think what struck me the most about Chairman Zero and his mis-understanding of the Constitution….is when he said that it specifies what government cannot do to you, but not what government must do for you.

    Major facepalm moment when he said this. I was screaming, “THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT, YOU IDIOT!” It was written by people who valued freedom, not security. They didn’t want government taking care of them or “doing things for them.” They wanted to be left the hell alone to live out their lives in peace, free from undue interference. They wanted only the minimum amount of government required to protect individual rights from dishonest persons and/or the nation’s territory against invasion by some foreign power that would enslave the American people.

    It just blows my mind what liberal judges find lurking in the “penumbras” of the Constitution, while twisting themselves into pretzels trying to ignore rights that do exist. They’ll tell us that the First Amendment protects an individual right to “speech” no matter how disgusting it is or how severely it violates the standards of the community where it takes place…or when it isn’t speech at but action, like crapping on a cop car or smearing the Virgin Mary with dung. But then they’ll turn right around and try to tell us that Madison and his contemporaries put the Second Amendment in there so as to make sure everyone would know that the police and army are allowed to carry weapons. As if that weren’t a given.

    Thanks for the shout, Neil.

    Like

  3. Liberals think you pass laws to find out what is in them.

    Liberals think more laws equal a better society while also believing they do not have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

    Liberals think the primary purpose of a government is redistribution of wealth to achieve fairness and the role of the constitution is define fairness when used for wealth redistribution.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s