I enjoy debating lefties on political issues, that is when you can find one willing to actually debate instead of calling you a racist because you don’t think Barack Hussein Obama is the second coming.
While playing with one at Nice Deb’s today, I tossed out the proposition that HR 32oo is unconstitutional, as is Medicare and Social Security. Rather than calling me a racist or a hater, my new friend tried to make a go of it.
Neither Social Security or Medicare would be constitutional if you are a “strict constructionist” ,but if you believed in “implied powers” like Hamilton they would be.
I found this to be quite an admission. You usually have to paint them into a corner and make them realize that the Constitutional justifications for these programs are made up by jurists looking to uphold the result. But the best part about these moments comes when I get to crystallize my own thoughts on the topic:
There is only one way to interpret the Constitution that can actually guarantee its preservation, and that is strict construction. The minute unelected jurists start finding rights and interpretations in penumbras and implications, then the only limitation on what is or is not Constitutional no longer resides in the objective guidelines of a foundational document, but in the subjective whims of five judges and the creativity they employ in their written decision to justify the result. The result you are advocating can be made Constitutional, but the process to achieve that result is Amendment, not judicial activism.
I can’t wait for his response.