[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: The Conscience of the Constitution The Conscience of the Constitution
The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty documents a vital, forgotten truth: our Constitution was written not to empower democracy, but to secure liberty. In fact, the word "democracy" does not occur in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Yet, to author and constitutional scholar Timothy Sandefur, the overemphasis on democracy by today's legal community--rather than the primacy of liberty, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence--has helped expand the scope of government power at the expense of individual rights. Now, more than ever, the Declaration of Independence should be the framework for interpreting our fundamental law. It is the conscience of the Constitution. "Liberty comes first and order arises from it," states Sandefur. "We have gone astray in our constitutional understanding because we have upended that relationship." The Conscience of the Constitution traces this upheaval back to the timeless conflict between freedom and power that gave rise to the Civil War and that was revived again by the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling in the 1873 Slaughter-House cases. Sandefur then examines the origins of controversial legal theories such as "substantive due process" and "judicial activism" and defends them against a wave of arguments from both left and the right. Although both sides of the political spectrum criticize the courts today for protecting individual rights too effectively, Sandefur shows that in reality judges have often abdicated their duty to rein in government abuses. Today, more and more Americans are witnessing their individual freedoms threatened and destroyed by the continually expanding grasp of government. While Americans will always differ over important political issues, our Constitution was meant to ensure that some things should not be settled by majority vote. In The Conscience of the Constitution, Timothy Sandefur presents a dramatic, richly compelling new challenge to the status quo of constitutional law. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4. #1. To: tpaine, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#0) Now, more than ever, the Declaration of Independence should be the framework for interpreting our fundamental law. It is the conscience of the Constitution. "Liberty comes first and order arises from it," states Sandefur. "We have gone astray in our constitutional understanding because we have upended that relationship." 100% agree! Americans forget what the founders said about our rights. They are not endowed by the governing nor even the governed. DoI says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- So I agree that "Now, more than ever, the Declaration of Independence should be the framework for interpreting our fundamental law. It is the conscience of the Constitution."
#3. To: redleghunter, Y'ALL (#1) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- I agree wholeheartedly with those words, as written. But I did notice, a long time ago, that the phrase still makes perfect sense, -- if it's written this way: --
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- And true enough, we do have a creator, but being an agnostic, I confess I have no clue whether that creator is a god. -- Can we still agree 100% about the Declarations phrase?
#4. To: tpaine, GarySpFc (#3) I agree wholeheartedly with those words, as written. But I did notice, a long time ago, that the phrase still makes perfect sense, -- if it's written this way: -- I have to agree with the founders and their reasoning for NOT omitting "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Some kids grow up as orphans and don't know who their mother or father are. But they do know they have parents. They can't say "I have no mother or father because they are not here and I can't see them." They would have to conclude some man, a biological father and some woman, a biological mother, conceived them. Same even for any potential founder who was a skeptic. So thus the words are there and the Creator is invoked in "the conscience of the Constitution" as the author of your piece calls the DoI.
Replies to Comment # 4. #5. To: redleghunter, Y'ALL (#4) Over on another unrelated thread, I was surprised to be pinged to this:---
redleghunter (#78) -- You have libertarians like tpaine who would like "Creator" erased from the Declaration of Independence.
That's a flat out lie, and you know it. We were discussing that phrase in the declaration, and I remarked that the it still made perfect sense without mention of a specific god, a Creator, --- while acknowledging that indeed, there must be a creator. What in hell is your purpose, what do you gain, by putting out such a petty lie about me and libertarians? Get a grip on your silly overly religious zeal.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 4. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|