DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Nearly Half Of Democrats Want The Constitution To Be "Updated"

by JASmius

Evidently it's not enough to Frankenstein the Founding Document and graft a respiratory system into it, now the Left wants to put it through "gender reassignment surgery" as well:

Almost half of registered Democrats think the Constitution needs to be updated, according to the results of a new poll.

A YouGov survey about the Constitution included a question of whether there should be another Constitutional convention to update the document that was created on September 17th, 1787 and ratified the following year.

Forty-one percent of Democrats said the Constitution "should be updated," while 43% said it has "held up well."

Only 20% of Republicans said they would like to see the Constitution updated, compared to the 68% who thought the opposite. Overall, 28% of those surveyed called for a new Constitutional convention to update the Constitution. Fifty-seven percent said the document is fine the way it is.

Hearing that essentially half of Democrats want to "update" the Constitution is....actually a lower percentage than I would have guessed.  Yes, it sounds like the "runaway ConCon" of some conservatives' nightmares, but in reality it's much ado about nothing.

The constitutional reasons are long-established.  A second Constitutional Convention under Article V could deliberate all the proverbial live-long day and produce whatever Amendments it wanted that called for whatever crazy "updates" half of Donks want to see, but a minimum of thirty-eight States (three-quarters) would still be required to ratify any of them, and in today's polarized, "red"/"blue" America, I don't think you could get a 3-1 majority to agree on the color of the sky anymore.  Of course, the exact same thing would be true of a conservative-oriented ConCon, which is why I am dubious of the prospects of pursuing one as an avenue to "restoring the Republic", though it is still worth attempting for its own sake in a "Well, we tried"/"leave it all out on the field" sense.

The political reasons are equally self-evident.  Formal "updating" of the Constitution is wholly unnecessary because the federal Judiciary has been "updating" it piecemeal for decades - 213 years, actually, going all the way back to Marbury v. Madison and the unconstitutional advent of "judicial review" and court interpretation of law in lieu of application of it - to such a grievous extent that it is not perceived as meaning anything remotely like the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers 229 years ago.  Holding a ConCon to actually put onto the parchment what scores of Justices have already scribbled in the case-law-spawned margins would be redundant.

The Constitution has already been effectively "fundamentally transformed", in other words - rather like an American flag being re-tailored into an adult diaper.  But that isn't enough for the Left; that "updating" must be not just implicit, but as explicit as possible to validate their "tribe," and expanded upon to the last jot and tittle of their "Agenda" to include seizure of every last private dollar, shedding of every last drop of unborn human blood, imprisonment and martyrdom of every last evangelical Christian, construction and dedication of every last mosque, and purging of every last morsel of Original Intent that bequeathed them the freedom to promulgate and pursue their vile, despotic, anti-constitutional, classically illiberal Agenda in the first place.

And they'll get there.  They just don't need a ConCon of their very own to attain it.  Justice Garland will be all the reinforcement they need.

No comments: