Liu's "Keeping Faith" is about applying Darwinism to Law, and applying faith to that method

Goodwin Liu,
Keeping Faith with the Constitution,
[9 free chapters published by the Leftist and apparently pro Communist-Socialist alias named]
the alleged "American Constitutional Society" http://www.acslaw.org/

A few points regarding the "Living Constitutionalists", or better yet, let us refer to them as mental "Darwinists Under Liberal Legalism for Communist Action, Revolution, & Evolution" (Dullcare).

Liu writes as to what defines his "brand" of Constitutional Interpretation:
“Our approach explains the dynamic character of constitutional law by focusing
on how courts,
political leaders,
and everyday citizens
interpret,
apply,
and adapt our written Constitution.” P. 29

In other words, the Constitutional Law is whatever a judge, political leader, and everyday citizens make it out to be…and if even a very small consensus of law-breakers and abusers warp and misinterpret the Constitution in the same way on the judicial bench, in political leadership, and among Leftist pseudo- "citizen action groups" …such as the right to circumcise/clitorize girls (as Muslims regularly do in Africa), subject populations to Muslim Sharia beatings – tortures - and executions, smoke dope, or demand lifelong welfare and endless educational grant entitlements to those refusing to work or contribute to society,
then by consensus, the Constitution now says those things without ever having said or implied the same.

But what if a majority consensus of Christians would demand a Sunday Sabbath (shut-down) on all businesses, as was popular in the first 190 years of this nation? Or what if a majority, as does now, would demand that Congress not impose taxation without representation? Congress under the unholy three, Obama - Pelosi- Reid, is clearly guilty of abuse, fraud, and pork waste of nearly 1 trillion dollars; and now the annual burden of purchasing a good that includes a minimum of 4 annual IRS force taxed annual payments in advance (Healthcare Insurance) for a service that is neither "necessary" nor "proper" in either this nation’s history or in the entire history of mankind’s civilizations over thousands of years. Thus, this "evolutionist philosophy upon the Law", is made up of the worst kind of hypocrites, those who calim the dynamic of a “living Constitution” while promoting totalitarianism, and also claiming inequality in their favor is justified by any and all means necessary. Communist-Socialists redefining themselves as "living Constitutionalist" effectively argue in ded or action that a "living Constitution" does not apply to Conservatives, but only the deviants and criminals of society in order to abuse and overthrow the Constitution and its orderly “originalist” System.
It could well be said, by looking at the judicial cases in various states and nationally, that the ACLU -- a 1930s splinter group from the Communist Party, with many splinter groups of its own (like ACORN by example), which promotes the Darwinian "living Constitution" conceptually -- has wreaked havoc upon US Law for the long-range goal of a Leftist Totalitarian Society in America since its beginnings.


And to this criminal mindset, Liu writes: p. 29 “In our interpretive tradition, reading the Constitution’s text and principles in light of changing norms and societal consequences is not radical.”

To Mao and Stalin, mass murdering tens of millions or a revenge upon clusters of many thousands being put to death at a time, was not radical, but "sweetness, that allows one the most pleasurable sleep" (or words to this effect, wrote Stalin).

So, as with "evolution" and "depravity" upon the amoral soul of Communism, one must have a conscience to call anything truly radical. So if the conscience is seared away, radicalism is redefined as Standard Operating Procedure in theoretical context, if not also eventually in application in Communism.

Liu argues two primary points that Originalism is incapable of properly interpreting and reconciling the Founding Fathers with today's societal norms.

The first point of his contention with Originalism was presented as though it was his best.

Liu was unable to be intellectually able to grasp how that a modern handgun could be accepted as a firearm under the Founding Father’s grasp.


Perhaps Liu would do better with this if he featured advocating this Stoner's idea on video, and then having “The Smoking Gun Presents: the World’s Dumbest Liberals” http://www.trutv.com/shows/tsg_presents/index.html

Liu has obviously never heard of a musket pistol; like the 1760 Scottish Flint-lock which was thought to have been an infamous weapon at the Battle of Lexington http://gun-sword.stores.yahoo.net/aac-7.html. Nor, perhaps has Liu even watched old pirate movies where historical props to 100 years earlier included the earlier variants of these musket pistols.

On this "greatest put down of Originalism" that he can muster, Liu has clearly lost the ability to reason that a firearm using gunpowder or explosive residue to fire a projectile is clearly an understood concept by those in the 1700s. One .60 caliber musket ball fired from a 1775 musket pistol, at point blank range; or one .50 caliber bullet fired from a 2010 Desert Eagle at point blank range. If both have the same exact effect, and kill...how are they so hard to grasp under the "Originalist" view?

Even the publicly self-professed "weed smokers" (like Garrett and Bonaduce) of “The Smoking Gun Presents: the World’s Dumbest..." would have their jaws dropping open at the vacuacy of such an argument as Liu presents: that the Founding Father's would not have called a pistol a firearm?!?

(Script: (Lines for Leif Garrett and/or Danny Bonaduce) - "Dude, they had musket pistols in the French and Indian War, let alone the Revolutionary War. Every school child in our own generation knows that. Is this guy Liu serious? Have you never ben to Williamsburg or one of the many Colonial Museums back east? Dude, get with it! If that's all it takes to get a Ph.D., to not even know that musket pistols were around during the Revolutionary War, and be called a scholar and "intellectual"...where do I mail in my 10 bucks and get my degree?
You don't think I'm serious? Here. Here's my 10 bucks. What's my selection of Universities. I want the same ones Liu got. I want to be known as a real lulu. Get it? Never mind." -- Ad libs invited).

The other major contention Liu draws, stating that it is impossible for Originalism to resolve, is to explain away the Constitutional Protection of private papers from “Search and Seizure” in the age of the Internet.

Is it "really" so hard to resolve in a simplified "Originalist" fashion?
We will skip the fact that goods, including furniture, were also stamped.

In the age of the Stamp Act,
the physical entry was into the home,
and rummaging through the home
to include any location not in plain sight
that might have an unauthorized document
that had not paid a tax
and been stamped to show that a tax had been paid.

Physical entry into private area of occupancy and ownership.

"Fishing" for that which they have no idea what they are seaching for, hence "warrantless"...nor any specific idea where incriminating privately owned documents are within the confines of the residence or on the limits of the owner's property. (For which reason some documents and monies were hidden in tins in gardens or owner memorized burial locations).

Presumption of guilt without reasonable cause.

Invasion of privacy based on the presumption of failure to pay a tax without just cause or proof.

So in regard to the Internet or one's computer.

Computer in the home, protected from Search and Seizure use by the Government Writ / Subpoena needed.

Private Documents in the home, protected from Search and Seizure by the Government. Writ / Subpoena needed.

Documents shared on the Internet in a public forum, not protected from Search and Seizure use by the Government.

Documents shared with an employer or the Government, privileged, but subject to Search and Seizure.

Any keystrokes not sent as a completed message, not subject to Search and Seizure.

Was that "really" so hard in the context of applying Originalism to our times? No.

By refusing to recognize a lowest common denominator between technology and the lack of technology, Liu and the Liberal Left are left with the lowest common denominator in terms of a lack of reason or intelligence.

We need to move away from over-complicating in order to placate ego, and move to a simplification that dramatically cuts the impitible poppycock transmuted as “Bureaucratic Red-Tape”. Only in our day, “Red” has taken on a Socialist-Communistic redefinition.

Unfortunately, when people are put forth to be Judges of Circuit Courts of Appeal without experience, often displaying a lack of common sense engulfed by "Communist-Socialist partisan agendas"; the Media looks at the color of their skin, finger wets their own social networking popularity among the celebrity and jet sets, and then turns a blind eye, and a deaf ear for the pleasure of sins for a season...being the antithesis of Moses (cf. Hebrews 11:26) and the Founding Fathers who quoted the Biblical book of Deuteronomy (featuring G-D, the People of Israel, and Moses) more than any other reference work.

"Moses...choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible."
(Hebrews 11:25-27)

We need more wise men of G-D like Moses, not godless reinterpretations or misinterpretations of US Constitutional Law. We need to view the Constitution in the context of the piety and distinction in which it was received, as the wisdom of G-D given to godly Christian men for godly government pending the Return of Jesus Christt; and being such, at such a level, that not since the impartation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has there been such a unique wisdom from G-D imparted to mankind.

Even with such a statement, the Constitution is absolutely no where near possessing the immediate presence of Divinity as found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and His Holy Bible...the Holy Bible being the Divine Writings of Truth imparted to us by G-D from Heaven, that we may get to know Him, the Deity, the Invisible Creator of the Heavens and the Earth: G-D the Father, though Jesus Christ the L-RD, through the teachings by G-D the Holy Spirit. Amen.