It Ain’t Personal
The Supreme Court in the 70's was beginning to interpret the Constitution as a “living document” which translates to not worth the paper it's written on. The purpose of a constitution is to be the bedrock of any government---not something to be interpreted in the context of the current political climate.
A few of the decisions made by the Court recently, are the result of members remembering that the Constitution says what it meant when originally written, not a political interpretation.
Our constitution clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, the Court never had the authority to make a decision on abortion. We now will have the debate which we should have had, fifty years ago---in each state.
The Second Admenment to the Constitution states the following: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The recent ruling by the Court reaffirms that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
In this ruling, the court is simply reading and properly interpreting the Constitution as meaning what it says: “shall not be infringed.”
The Court recently affirmed a coach's right to prayer on the football field after a game. The case against him was founded on the Constitution's “separation of church and state”…which, by the way, does not exist in the Constitution. About all that is said about religion in the Constitution is actual words in the First Amendment of the Constitution read as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."
One of the members of the court wrote, “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic-whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head.”
A case which probably won't get much attention for the time being, is, nevertheless, important---West Virginia v. Enviromental Protection Agency. The bottom line of the decision against the EPA is that legislators must begin writing their own laws. In other words, they can't write a suggestion for which the details are filled in by unelected bureaucrats.
The Democrats are yelling that the decisions are all political; however, the decision to block the effort by a couple of states to end President Trump's “Remain in Mexico” policy runs against this argument.
If any citizens are unhappy with these ruling which follow the Constitution are welcome to look into Article V of the Constitution: it may be amended by the vote of two-thirds of House and two-thirds of the Senate or the amendment can be sent to the states where three quarters of the states must agree.
It should be noted that not once in rendering their decisions and opinions did any member of the court call people who opposed their decisions a bad name.
It ain't personal. It's about the Constitution.
enough