04-11-2017, 05:00 PM
(04-11-2017, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I am a Green liberal. So I disagree with originalism, but also disagree with utopianism. The law is intended to protect a higher ethical law, which is unwritten. The Court must interpret the written law in order to uphold the unwritten law. Social evolution and change did not stop in 1787; therefore the Constitution must be interpreted to fit the needs of the time. These days, in fact, the "originalists" interpret the constitution to "legislate the Republican agenda," which is always to turn the clock back to a nation under the authority of a wealthy white male elite, as it was in 1787.
The most common utopian of today is a libertarian originalist, who thinks we can turn the clock back to the "enumerated powers" in order to shrink government in such a way that it cannot meet the needs of the people, and would not operate in the public interest. Gorsuch, Alito, Scalia and Thomas fit this mold.
Utopia does not exist; what is needed is justices who know and understand both the law and the needs of today's society. And of course, the Constitution was not entirely written in 1787, because the framers installed an amendment process; recognizing that society and its needs changes.
Congress can try to "figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so." The Court must see to it that this law does not violate the Constitution, and take account of precedent. (It is not to see that the laws are executed properly; that's the role of the executive branch). Liberals understand that the Constitution itself is flexible enough to allow for progress toward utopia. Conservatives think that such things as civil rights and social programs did not exist in 1787, so they should not exist now. They think the Constitution is rigid enough to impose their restrictive goals upon us.
Considering whom the utopians ARE today, however, it's a question which side is the "liberal" side (or "neo-liberal"), and which the rigid one.
1. Utopia cannot exist given than mankind is just a tacky, tacky species. Just look at the summation of history for that one.
2. The "Green Agenda". Eric, you know this, right?
a. We need to restrict illegal aliens because they can lead to unwanted population increases in the confines of US territory wrt sustainability, right? There ARE limits, and the US needs to figure out quick how much the territory of the US can support. I'm at one with Paul Ehrlich and the Population Time Bomb. Look, I don't want that bomb going off in the US. So, that's why we need the "wall". Otherwise, what do you support? Minefields to secure the border? Next, we need to fine the fuck out of companies that hire illegal aliens. That's demand side economics, just like "liberals" agree with.
b. All states need to end fossil fuel subsidies and keep renewable subsidies. Here's why: Fossil fuels always have an externalities of CO2 emissions. Likewise, any Mideast war needs to be paid for with some sort of oil import fee, so the real costs of intervention are realized in assorted balance sheets. Fair is fair, after all.
c. Here's the camel in the tent. US empire costs too much for the [destitute,working poor, working class, middle class] to subsidize. So... US out of the MidEast!. If you want green energy to hit the launch pad, make sure the true costs of Mideast oil are reflected in the market place.
---Value Added 