Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for February 18, 2011

What’s valuable about Original Intent is not that it was the Founding Fathers’ but that their ideas of limited government were better than the “living Constitution” baloney we get today.

As for Thomas’ disclosure forms, it’s news to me. Details! I want details, not just innuendo.

Yeah, psc, that seems to be the main thing so many people miss, that the Constitution was mostly about limiting the powers of government, not limiting the freedoms of the people.

Ruben Bolling, you are awesomeness defined. Judge Scalia is the best character in your strip. Misng, I applaud your defense of personal freedom and limited government; I presume that means that the government should not limit the ability of people to marry who they want to? PSC, it’s hardly innuendo; Justice Thomas filed amended disclosure forms yesterday. If that’s news to you, that means that whatever source of information you have been using is ipso facto not news.

Which is one reason why the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments were passed in the first place - because the state governments had taken it on themselves to limit citizenship and suffrage. On the other hand, it must be a living document because times and technology change - in our own case, drastically, which is what Tom’s point is, I believe. Our own idea of freedom itself is different from that of the rich, white, educated elites who came up with the Constitution. America already had a diverse population in the eighteenth century, but only a minority of the adults could directly influence the law, or the enforcement of it.

I find Bolling’s “Anti-Chicago-ism” is starting to affect his work.

Yes, Justice Thomas’s corruption would probably be “news to you” if all you watch is Fox. The rest of us heard about it weeks ago.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justicethomascitesmisunderstandingofthefilinginstructionsfor_disclo/

I know I forget to report $700,000 of my wife’s income all the time.

Chris: Parts of your link caused formatting changes. Underscores need to be preceded by a backslash in order to be properly translated. They otherwise toggle italics.

Correct link is:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_thomas_cites_misunderstanding_of_the_filing_instructions_for_disclo/

BTW I learned this just yesterday.

If Scalia ran the NBA every time someone accidentally banked in a shot it would not count (if original intent was not to bank the shot, yes?). Also, I couldn’t go to the store without making clear my Original Intent and sticking to it: if I make an impulse purchase I should be unceremoniously tossed out! Wow, Judge Scalia, your Original Intent has implications quite beyond your, ahem, Original Intent.

Did you know? In Bush v Gore, the 5 justices who stopped the recount in Florida declared in their ruling that they were against states rights, a position that they strongly held in all their opinions prior to and after Bush v Gore? That the Bush v Gore ruling was the most activist ruling ever made by the Supreme Court and that the so-called “originalist” Scalia played an extremely activist role? Did you also know that Sandra Day O’Connor should have recused herself because there were at least 2 instances where she stated publicly that she wanted Bush to win and would fix it so that the outcome was correct? She wanted to retire but did not want to be replaced with a nominee from a democratic president. Wake up conservative dupes! Scalia and his thugs are fooling you.

Sorry, jimjammer, I’m not seeing your point about “there has to be bounds set.” If all the people involved are willing participants, what’s the problem? If the bag of sand, for that matter, has legal status and gives its consent, what’s the problem?

The guy who hadn’t heard the news about Clarence Thomas also needs to read some history – the main impetus for the Constitution was to strengthen the new federal government, not to limit it.

Who gives two shakes of a tail about gay marriage? Who would deny an expansion of civil rights to millions of citizens based on what, exactly? Religion? Fear? The idea of “should we let them” has an imperial ring to it. Conservatives invoke the idea of “the sanctity of marriage” but never introduce legislation to outlaw divorce, and divorce is the nail in the cross of marriage. When gay marriage is legal conservatives will have to find another enemy to get people whipped up over. Pathetic.

Icky wrote: “Who gives two shakes of a tail about gay marriage?”

Answer: I do. And thanks for asking.

Just because you live in a state that won’t allow you to marry your boy friend doesn’t mean you have to get all bent outta shape! Move to Hawaii dude! I hear they’ve caved and allow it now. Sick.

And like Jim says above: what if a gay dude wants to marry one gay guy from every state in the union! Fifty gay guys all married to each other at once! Would that be ok??! Or, do you still say: “who gives two shakes??!”

Get a grip dude! Liberalism is a mental disease.

hugh_jainus: You recapitulate an argument that no one who is serious is making, and you make it sloppily to boot (and somewhat tellingly you only mention “guys, as if women don’t exist). The “what if 50 gays in 50 states…” extrapolation only works if your panties are in a proverbial bunch. Lastly, not knowing me you state that I want to marry my boyfriend (my wife might protest that one). Get some experience in the world, and treat others as you would be treated: gays have been genetically tested and appear to be human beings, worthy of the same respect and dignity that you are. Turn off the radio, stop lapping up manipulated propagand concerning “liberal/conservative” constructs and maybe your heart and mind will start talking to each other again.

Yo Icky:

Nice try my little chum, but you didn’t answer my question. Look, 50 yrs ago, no one would have believed in the 21st century states would cave on the definition of marriage. Fast forward: 50 yrs from now, will it be okay for 50 gay guys (or lezbos too, if it’ll make ya happy) be prohibited from marrying each other. It’s not a stretch to ask that question. And your answer please?

(And please, don’t gimme this “I’m not living 50 yrs from now. I’m living in 2011 and should only deal with the here and now!” My question: SHOULD people 50 yrs from now let gays and lezbos marry a person from every state in the union, thus having 50 gay / lezbo spouses?). If “yes”: why? If “no”: why?

Good luck!

“SHOULD people 50 yrs from now let gays and lezbos marry a person from every state in the union, thus having 50 gay / lezbo spouses?”

You tip your hand yet again. Your question separates “gays and lezbos” from “people” as if those are mutually exclusive conditions, and as a bonus you use the pejorative term for a lesbian, which again says more about you than anyone else. Why not ask “Should male/female couples be able to marry everybody in all 50 states, all at once?” It’s the same straw-man question, a non-sequiter “gotcha” that gets nothing. Take responsibility for your earnest need to deny a civil right to millions of Americans–no need to couch your opinion in Kafkaesque terms. p.s. Maybe Dear Abby can answer your question.

Ick:

Dude! Just answer the friggin’ question! Forget your 50 cent words, and just answer the question!

And BTW : you tip your hand too: no doubt you’re a left leaning, Prius driving (with the obligatory Obama bumper sticker!), union loving, college “professor” , who backs the union goons in Wisconsin.

Ok smart guy, I’ll use your question:

“Should male/female couples be able to marry everybody in all 50 states, all at once?”

Answer it.

Hugh–your question presents a logistical nightmare: how can one person be in fifty places at once? If it could happen, how could 98% of our citizens afford it? Got it: only super-wealthy, trans-time-dimensional polygamist Americans can do what you ask!

p.s. I do support the right of workers to enter into collective bargaining agreements. If I read you correctly you are on the other side of that issue. So be it. We have now bled the thread.

To everyone else except Icky:

You’ll note that he fails to answer the core question cuz, as all libs do, he fails to see the slippery slope the re-defining of marriage carries with it. He fails to see that there is no legal rationale to prohibit one person from marrying 50 people from the same town, much less from 50 states, once marriage is re-defined. Typical liberal mind. Fuzzy thinking is coming to a head in Wisconsin and Detroit.

God save America.

surfstuff55–I don’t think anyone is making the argument that churches should be forced to marry couples that they don’t want to marry–that would violate the basic constitutional provision for a separation of church and state. Rather, Bronze Age religionists should not have a legal right to deny other churches or secular institutions the right to marry same sex couples if they so choose. We don’t live in a theocracy, and that’s a good thing.

Hugh: oh my god–look out! There’s a Slippery Slope headed right towards you! Run away! Run away!

Yo Ick:

Read Surfstuff’s comment again for that slippery slope you take so lightly. Once again: it’s the fuzzy thinking of libs that’s flushing this country down the toilet. And when you start screwing around with the basic unit of society, it won’t end well. Go look in the mirror for the reason why.

Now go hop in your Prius and drive to Madison!

Yo Hugh: for a small government guy you’re kind of old school Teutonic-bossy–“answer the question” and “…hop in your Prius and drive to Madison” etc. Perhaps you could get a snowboard and hit the slippery slopes?

Jimjammer and Hugh something -

Can I marry a bag of sand if I want to?!!

No. A bag of sand is not a consenting adult. This is not relevant to the issue of two consenting, competent adults being granted legal recognition of a marriage, regardless of gender.

You are a liar and stupid.

You are liar because you tried to dissemble by changing the subject. You are stupid because you did so stupidly.

But if you want to confine it to “who”, then why can’t I marry one person from each state of the union at the same time – (great for income tax purposes!). Fifty spouses! Whoopie! Or why can’t I marry 400 people? What business is it of the government??

Again, this has nothing to do with whether two consenting, competent adults can have a marriage legally recognized.

Stupid, a liar, and a bigot is no way to go through life. But you two are probably stuck with it. (Fat, drunk and stupid would be far better, although you may also be fat and drunk for all I know).

@ icky

You may have already figured this out, but Hugh is NOT in favour of small government. Not one itty tiny bit. He is a big-government conservative through and through, as he has admitted here in the past.

@ OtisIzaltumuch

Right on! The Constitution was a counterrevolutionary reaction that undid many of the gains of the Revolution. All of the true patriots and lovers of liberty opposed it. It was people who only supported the Revolution because they wanted to rule the country from closer to home that pushed it through.

However, their victory was incomplete, and they had to cut a deal: the Bill of Rights. (Madison is the moderate who walked a fine line here and got exactly what he wanted.) A later generation, in order to increase the power of the national government yet more, did so by empowering it to defend individuals from the States, giving us the 14th Amendment (and some others along those lines), as well as the doctrine that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. These are all good things, since they increase freedom.

And it’s these amendments that we’re discussing here. (So if we take MisngNOLA’s comment about the Constitution to be about these amendments instead, then it is correct.) Bolling’s point is that the people who wrote the amendments could not anticipate the situations in which they’re now being applied, so Scalia simply makes up his own interpretation and calls it Original Intent; Bolling is quite correct about this. However, understanding this leaves us with no way to know how we should apply these amendments today.

This is ultimately a political question, to which I give a political answer: we should interpret them to increase the freedom of individuals. On this basis (applied to the examples in the comic), Scalia’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct, while his interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong.

H Lance:

Hey Bro! Yer missin’ the point! You limit your discussion to “2 consenting adults”. That’s the point my little chum: why do YOU put a limit on marriage to only two??!! The government has traditionally recognized “two” people (man and woman). And rightfully so. Leave it that way.

And contrary to what Toby says above, I am not for big government. Matter o’ fact it needs to shrink: get rid of NPR, EPA, Dept of Education, Public TV. The list could go on.

I support DOMA too.

And don’t call me names. Ha!

Based on the above discussion comments, I think we can all agree on the following:

According to the constitution everyone, by law, must be gay AND married. By virtue of the second amendment, all Americans must purchase fire arms AND organize their own militias. It is unconstitutional for central Government to weigh in on the nature of deep dish pizza. Rather this is a power that should be reserved for the States.

Failure to observe ANY of these statutes means that one is violating both the original intent and the “living document” nature of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Punishment of this crime shall be banishment to Canada, where offenders will be forced to pray while in school…

in FRENCH.

Thank you, and God Bless the United States of America.

Amen.

It’s a slippery slope. You deny gay marriage, then all of a sudden, fifty years down the line, you’ll deny straight marriage, and then, traditional copulation. Then after a while we stop existing.

You liberal minded types always wanting your big governments to horn in on public affairs.

Hugh -

‘Hey Bro! Yer missin’ the point! You limit your discussion to “2 consenting adults”.’

Because that is the obvious point. What is your argument against legal recognition of marriage between two consenting adults? Anti-polygamy statutes have NOTHING to do with this.

‘That’s the point my little chum: why do YOU put a limit on marriage to only two??!! The government has traditionally recognized “two” people (man and woman). And rightfully so. Leave it that way.’

I am not little and not “yer” chum.

You have failed to advance a convincing rationale for legal discrimination against gay marriage.

‘I support DOMA too.’

No shit.

‘And don’t call me names. Ha!’

Your comments are stupid, dishonest, and bigoted. I will point that out if I feel like it.

Hugh -

Maybe I’m being a little rough here.

But you could easily convince me to stop calling your arguments “stupid” and “dishonest”.

Just openly say “I don’t like gays and I don’t want them to have the same rights as other American citizens. I don’t want them to have the right to legally recognized marriages. I admit that this has nothing to do with bags of sand or polygamy”.

That would be bigoted, but it wouldn’t be stupid or dishonest.