If you actually read the quoted source in the OP, you would have gained from the second paragraph, to wit, that the argument of one side is specifically that the US Constitution does not provide for such a recall proceeding.
But isn't the liberal/progressive argument the one that purports that the Constitution is a "living" document? Subject to interpretation under the exigencies of the moment? Infinitely malleable to adapt to circumstances, isn't that how the refrain goes?.
Surely, the progressives cannot be now retreating to an argument of requiring a strict interpretation of the Constitution and original intent? Why, that is positively conservative!
I am going to re-quote the ending paragraphs as the intent of a recall effort might not simply be to effect a recall. No, the intent is something that might be quite different entirely.
Unless, of course, the Constitution IS that malleable. In which case, untoward politicians had best beware!
Hi PJabber, this is one of those posts where I answer you, aware you aren't going to get a word I have to say, but it's for others.
Yes, liberals have referred to the constitution as a 'living document'. Some of these liberals were its authors, others are modern.
Now, they mean something by that you don't understand, so you spoutgibberish trying to quote them, make a straw man. But we'll get to that. First, what they say.
The founding fathers knew they were writing a document for a society that would evolve. It represented some principles thatthey tried to express in their time, but knew new things would come up the principles neededto be applied to to keep it current, and thereby intended the document to be interpreted as a living document so the principles remained in force, not anachronisms without any effect as society changed.
For example, when the founding fathers decided on a principle of free speech, they wrote free speech, but they didn't mean it to be limited to the verbal comments of the time, the most literal interpreation of speech, or even the technology then, the newspaper, the pamphlet. It was a principle. So when someone came up with a movie - free speech. When someone came up with the internet - free speech. Even when someone got the crazy idea to use art for political messages that offended people - free speech. Flag burning to express political rebellion? The more evolved applied free speech.
But that's an easy one.
One in the modern times was that the founding fathers did not anticipate birth control pills. But there they were one day. And there were government elected officials wanitng to pass laws to say that no, there are NOT legal products - they are undermining the moral fabric of society, removing consequences for sexual indulgence. For the sake of argument, assume a majority of the public agree with them. SO they banned them.
Then some old guys sit down with a really old piece of paper and ask, can they do that? They look through the constitution, and it says nothing. Hm, reserved to the state. Well, the states are banning them. OK then.
The 'conservatives' had a hard time seeing any proble. What are those crazy liberals up to though?
Well, the liberals looked at the old paper and said, "hm, we see a common theme here - for the government stay out of people's affairs needlessly. They knew exceptions were made - if the government could show some 'valid social benefit'. But they looked at the cases, and determined there was a priniple in the constotution, expressed in various examples, but not directly to birth control pills the founding gfathers had no idea about - technologically not to mention the 'times had changed'.
And they came up with an inrterpretation of the constitution - not a change to it, a change to the scope of how they had interpreted it, and said it had a "penumbra of freedom" that had an implicit right to privacy.
Oh, neat. A new liberal right - but not one made up, one recognized as havingf been a principle there all along, and exposed this way by changes to society.
They didn't say, "I can sleep with my intern with birth control pills, so I'll make up a right". They said, the consttution's principles dictate to preotect the freedom of people to use these pills.
Indeed, these liberals feel that not applying the principles as a living document is to violate the constitution itself - ruling narrowly would be AGAINST the constitution.
Why, look at it. It has right in it, the instruction about all those vague rights not listed - they ARE PROTECTED! The conservative justices seem to sort of ignore that. Their ideology says to.
And they made it a right. And conservatives never forgave them for the legal decision, while they gobbled the pills with big smiles.
Now, I said we'd get back to you. Since none of this has any meaning to you. the prhase 'living document' you decide means "has no meaning at all, ignore it and write what you like".
And you proceed to attack any decision you don't agree with that even remotely can fit this descripion as just that. It's wrong, but you like it and use it.
And so we get to your post. Where you use is sarcastically. Can't liberals just make up the recall 'right'?
No, they can't. And no, you have no idea why.
Facebook
Twitter