Spiderrob wrote:Of course you did. Most law school professors, as I know from direct experience, are left wing. Most of the "hijacking" has been done by left wingers.
The interstate commerce clause has been stretched beyond all recognition.
By who'e estimation? From an economic view point, there's very little that does not impact interstate commerce. Our markets are becoming so intertwined that the idea of a completely local market is nearly extinct. With the advent of the internet and near real-time communication, nearly every market in the world is just a few clicks away. It's not the idea of the commerce clause that's been stretched, it's the reach of markets from far away being able to reach customers on the other side of the world, let alone different states.
The Constitution was also rewritten to provide a right to an abortion.
No, it was decided that the laws attempting to regulate abortion overstepped the right to privacy inherant in the Bill of Rights. Roe v. Wade, which I agree with you is a very poorly written case in which the logic does not support the conclusion, all but provides states with the roadmap they need to regulate abortion. So far from saying there is a right to abortion, RvW says there is in fact no right to abortion, and if the states were smart enough, they'd be able to regulate abortion fairly heavily.
It was also rewritten to apply the bill of rights to the states through the 14th amendment which doesn't say that.
This is what the 14th Amendment does say
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The protections of the Bill of Rights applies to US citizens. I don't think you need a court action to apply the Bill of Rights to state actions...the 14th Amendment seems to do that pretty well on it's own.
Basically, take much of con law since the Supreme Court, in panic over Roosevelt's attempt at court packing, suddenly switched and found constitutional the New Deal programs through the present.
All by twisting the constitution beyond all recognition.
When i was a child, I was told a fairy tale by my teachers.
"The Constitutution is such an important document. And look how well they made it. It only need 26 (at the time) amendments in 220 years. and the first 10 were done right away. That shows how well crafted it was."
Reality is its been amended dozens, if not hundreds of times by the Courts.
and many of those "amendments" i support. But not done without any foundation in the constitution.
They aren't amendments. They are applications of the Constitution to specific instances, just as courts do every day with laws, regulations, and Constitutional clauses. It's what courts do. And I'd much rather some judge sitting for live...never having to worry about winning votes or needing campaign money from some special interest group...making those decisions than the folks who do need to pander in order to keep working.
But the Constitution itself hasn't been amended. It's just not the kind of document that is designed to regulate specific things.