The preceding gent stated:
“I think the writer is losing sight of the fact that conservative values and fealty to our divinely inspired constitution are non negotiable, and are worth fighting (and killing) for.”
“Should that murderous loyalty be to the ideals supposedly protected by the USC/BoR, or to the flawed expressions therein?”
Another (hopefully clearer) way to ask my question would be:
“Is the Constitution/BoR worth killing over, or is it the ideals supposedly protected by that document that are worthy of taking others’ lives?”
My premise for the question is that the USC/BoR does not and has not stood by itself for 200+ years.
What we refer to as “the USC/BoR” is not just the words of the document themselves, but also all of the words of all of the ratified amendments, plus all of the accreted ‘interpretations’ of all of those words by Federal courts (not just SCOTUS, but circuit courts of appeal and even district courts) for 200+ years.
That interpretative process has created the following monster:
all words of USC/BoR
all words of every ratified amendment
all published words of every court that has ruled on all USC/BoR/amendments since ratification of each
“the body of US constitutional law”
Now, restating my question with that info, it reads:
“Is the body of US constitutional law worth killing over, or is it the ideals supposedly protected by that institution that are worthy of taking others’ lives?”
I would argue that the body of US constitutional law, as a whole, is not worth a duck’s fart, in that along with ‘the good stuff’, it includes statements such as:
– the Feds can require private citizens to purchase health insurance
– any level of government can seize private property for virtually any purpose so long as there is some nominal adjudication process
– administrative agencies headed by appointed officials can promulgate rules that have the force of law
– laws forbidding a woman from directing a doctor to murder her baby are unconstitutional
– warrantless surveillance/seizure is acceptable in far more circumstances than a layman would believe reading the words of the 4A standing alone
– anti-sodomy laws are impermissible
– the $ taken by force by the Feds under the name of ‘social security’ ceases to belong to its original earner
– public displays of Christian symbols are forbidden on government land
– notwithstanding the ‘shall not be infringed’ language of the 2A, government at all levels can infringe upon RKBA in multiple ways as long as there are enough hoplophobes amongst the reviewing panels of judges for a particular controversy
and so forth.
This point is missed by most Constitutionalists, who without sufficient thought accept the body of US constitutional law as being worthy of bloodshed.
More importantly, those same well-meaning folks also fail to see that, as long as “The Constitution” is defined as the prize, it is very easy for supporters of the past 80 years of collectivist judicial activism to claim that they are defending the Constitution (as it is understood in reality by >50%+ of the American people) from evil white men who want to turn the clock back.
Let me repeat:
The people who will in the near future come to kill/imprison freedom-loving folks will say and believe that they are the ones defending the Constitution and the legitimate USG from those who would violently overthrow those democratic, 100% legal American institutions.
It is a huge problem that I have not seen anyone in FREEFOR address explicitly:
Is the USC/BoR/amendments/caselaw edifice worthy of our efforts?
Those are worth defending to the final extreme.
Not the verbal vomiting-forths of elitist lawyers for the past 200+ years.