I think of this Futurama clip every time I talk to a Constitutionalist.
But they are rarely honest enough to admit "There are parts of the Constitution I like and parts I don't like!".
Because they are almost universally supportive of the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs, and "immigration control"*, and against "gay marriage" (which means they are for government-regulated marriage). None of those things are permitted by the Constitution. If you support or advocate any of those you are against the Constitution when it doesn't allow you to "legally" do things you want to do. Just like me.
However, I readily admit to not liking most of the Constitution due to the fact it established a State, and that I consider it irrelevant, while acknowledging that a "Constitutional America" would be a huge improvement over what the US is now.
_
*The one part of the Constitution sometimes pointed to as "proof" that it "legalizes" immigration control is actually concerned with the importation of slaves. Not the same thing at all.
.
-----
ReplyDeleteThe one part of the Constitution sometimes pointed to as "proof" that it "legalizes" immigration control is actually concerned with the importation of slaves.
-----
And even that part, they have backward.
Article I, Section 9, says that Congress can't interfere with the states on importation of slaves (OR "migration," which it wouldn't bring up if that wasn't considered a separate issue) until after 1808.
Article V specifies that the Constitution can't even be amended to get rid of that 20-year provision.
At no time since the expiration of that 20-year provision has Congress proposed, or the states ratified, an amendment giving Congress the power to regulate "migration." Therefore no such power exists in the Constitution.
And that's exactly how Congress understood things for almost a century. Prior to the 1870s, the only federal immigration laws concerned whether or not federal port officials could enforce the immigration laws of the states the ports were located in.
The constitutional prohibition on a federal power to regulate immigration was weakened first through treaty provisions, and later by an activist SCOTUS ruling miracling up such a power from whole cloth.
The only thing I like about the so-called "constitutionalists" is that it keeps 'em occupied while I prepare to fly under the ignorant white man's radar.
ReplyDeleteBeing a sovereign state has it's perks, ya know.
Sam