[The Urban Sombrero]

So, though steeped in the flawed logic of the social justice crowd, you nonetheless still expect that I would allow you then, to define in negative light my own cognitive prowess? :please:

Your argument is the same tactic used by Barack Obama, (not that he had a scintilla of experience, or outside of an incredible sense of self worth was in any way qualified by resume) when he dared to lecture the world on the topic of the day. He did it to the leaders of foreign lands, the Supreme Court, the US Congress, and the people of America. In fact, the junior Senator lectured the planet. Following in the footsteps of his excellency, you lecture to (though posthumously) The Founders, questioning and dismissing clear documentation of the era, Justice Scalia, and BGR.

Past self delusion, the gift of conflation is also noteworthy among your repertoire of debate skills. To wit; Constructionism, is a lawfully strict adherence to the words and phrases used, rather than to ascribe secondary meaning and therefore intent. In other words, liberals like you disagree with any form of absolute truth, preferring instead the comfort of the vast and fertile fields of your imagination. In this way you are just so essentially liberated, even to the point where you in like manner as your example Mr Obama, presume to correct even the Founders.

Textualism on the other hand, is far better applied to the study of Scripture than law, and as such describes an adherence to a text. In this way liberal pseudo scholars read all sorts of falsehoods into the founding documents, to include everything from the social conditions in Europe, to the influences they say were brought to bear by friends, to today's 300 year too late word plays on spiritual nuances concerning their faith. Now comes Sombrero from Hootin Holler, Kentucky, to inform the planet that he must define for us the shortfalls of the Founders, and their unfortunate failings and lapses in judgment.

There is quite a difference between Constructionism, the true measure of the Founders mind set and the language of our founding documents, and Textualism. These great men were true geniuses in their own right, and though you would interlope the part of the righteously indignant, it is at the hand of the revisionist liberal that the Founders suffer true insult. And thusly would you substitute your convictions upon others, as you did in substituting the term 'strict textualist' for the word I used, which was in fact constructionist.

The law cannot be applied equally for the sake of the 'common good' (not that an adherent to social justice would want it to be) if it is not applied in strict constructionist fashion, and the liberal cannot see this particular forest for the trees. Here is an example of the consequences of liberalism gone amok. We leapfrog over the crimes committed by illegals because pointing to the perceived plight of their offspring, we say we are a compassionate people. While we don't have a bit of compassion for those who must pay for their crimes.
EXCERPT---
"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year." http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-i...d=10699317

Earlier I cited activist judges; The lifeboats of the Titanic were designed to hold around 65 people. It is said that Stewards aboard those lifeboats, in order to save them from being capsized or sunk, were forced to shoot desperate and drowning passengers trying to climb in from the freezing black waters. Now, one can probably rightfully blame the White Star Line for the whole mess, though the Captain's lust for breaking the speed record may have been the more likely cause. The point is that though we can and will use our lifeboat to assist folks around the world, we cannot take them all in. And if we persist in the present madness, would-be immigrants will at some point reach the tipping point (if not already) and we will sink.

You parse much better than you persuade. Again, you seek to engage some monolithic left, scatter straw to high heavens upon the actual person you are debating. While I concur that our Founders, many of them, were extremely forward thinking and perceptive, they were not omnipotent nor without blind spots. That is plain enough from history. Justice Scalia's approach comes to the South in the era of Jim Crow. That is the question, TRT. "Here comes the plaintiff seeking to attend the University of Mississippi"... would the approach of Justice Scalia have found it "activist" of judges to give Constitutional remedy? That it is settled law now does not answer the question. Is Justice Scalia's approach so restrictive that it leaves to the legislative branch Constitutional remedy that is the duty of the judicial to recognize and protect? This is not to say that the Left is not guilty of being too broad, but it is to say the issue is NOT identity politics. It is a legitimate debate about what happens when Justice Scalia's approach is taken to logical come out places.