Searched through, high and low;
can’t seem to locate right to
abortion in it.

Incorporation:
Amendments absorbed, sponge-like?!
…And selectively?!

 Even more bizarre?
“Reverse incorporation.”
Fourteenth into Fifth.1See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).

The Constitution:
Start screwing around with it
and it won’t work right.

You don’t like its text?
Use the amendment process
in Article V.

What the Framers thought
is NOT relevant to the
meaning of the text.

Full Faith and Credit
to state judgments; gay marriage
excepted by law.2See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1 (providing that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the . . . judicial Proceedings of every other State,” but that “the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such . . . Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof”); Defense of Marriage Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (“No State . . . shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State . . . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State . . . or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”).

Romer v. Evans:
As Bork once said, no one knows
what the hell it means.3See Robert H. Bork, Federalist Society Symposium Tenth Anniversary Banquet Speech, 13 J. L. & Pol’y 513, 513 (1997) (“It is hard to tell what the Romer decision means, because it is basically incomprehensible.”)

“Dormant Commerce Clause”:
How can Article I trump
the Twenty-First’s text??4See Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).

“Commerce among . . . States”
Sorry, that Clause does not mean
what you think it means.

Fourteenth Amendment
includes gender?! Then Nineteenth
is superfluous!

The Tenth Amendment:
Fundamental concept, but
is a truism.

Judicial review
comes not from Marbury, but
from Article V.

Recess appointments —
Court dodges for decades, then
screws up Noel Canning.5NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. ___ (2014).

Eleventh fix made:
Simple negation — and yet,
the Court fucks it up.

Morrison: Court holds
independent counsel law
OK. Clearly wrong.6See Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988).

The death penalty:
Not unconstitutional!
Thrice mentioned in text.7See U.S. Const. amend. V (providing that “[n]o person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” and “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”); U.S. Const. amend. XIV (“No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”).

“Scrutiny Land” is
the place where the Court goes to
arrogate power.

Judicial Power:
Courts must say what the law IS;
NOT what it should be.

Second Amendment:
Feds may never infringe, BUT…
does not restrict States.

The First Amendment
reads, “Congress shall make no Law.” There
are reasons for that!

“When the text is clear,
our inquiry is over.”
The Court lies to us.

Footnotes   [ + ]

1. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
2. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1 (providing that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the . . . judicial Proceedings of every other State,” but that “the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such . . . Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof”); Defense of Marriage Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (“No State . . . shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State . . . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State . . . or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”).
3. See Robert H. Bork, Federalist Society Symposium Tenth Anniversary Banquet Speech, 13 J. L. & Pol’y 513, 513 (1997) (“It is hard to tell what the Romer decision means, because it is basically incomprehensible.”)
4. See Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).
5. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. ___ (2014).
6. See Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988).
7. See U.S. Const. amend. V (providing that “[n]o person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” and “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”); U.S. Const. amend. XIV (“No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”).
Click to Follow This Post (receive an e-mail if this post is updated)
X

Click to Follow This Post (receive an e-mail if this post is updated)

E-mail :
(Note: You will be prompted to enter your e-mail address. After doing so, you will receive a verification e-mail, which you must confirm in order to be subscribed to this post.)