Santorum is a lunatic, Part 10,568

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it's logical? Arguing that the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean renders the constitution meaningless.

The Constitution is deliberately vague on some things (like what constitutes "general welfare" or "commerce between the states" ... and unambiguous on what is prohibited to some extent.  Summary executions are obviously prohibited. There will be conservative interpretations and liberal interpretations. I suppose that if we ever had a fascist or Commie regime there would be fascist or Commie interpretations.

What has been done in the past and has not been shown unconstitutional by a ruling of the Supreme Court can be assumed Constitutional until prohibited. Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, Section 8 housing, and other big programs can only be abolished through specific legislation in the absence of a USSC ruling.

Even the clause of "building post roads" gives authority for Federal involvement in building highways that will surely be used for purposes other than delivering the mails. 

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. Unconstitutional legislation is just as unconstitutional the day it was issued as the day it is struck down.

The Supreme Court does not review legislation for Constitutionality until that legislation appears in a case before it. Such a review is not among the enumerated powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court exists largely to counteract egregious violations of the Constitution -- like denial of human rights or unwarranted sequestration of private property. It is up to Congress to establish the wisdom of such laws as it enacts and to the People to elect appropriate legislators.

It may be your view that the common man is rightly the thrall of cartels, trusts, and landed magnates in the name of the sacredness of entrepreneurial and hereditary power. For such to become the norm you and your friends must convince the general public that it is wise to give people complete and irrevocable trust in economic elites. But until then the Constitution can generally serve an aristocratic elite or a Scandinavian-style welfare state. What it does not support is a mad executive or a legislature running amok -- not Ivan the Terrible and not Robespierre.   

The Supreme Court can establish corrective remedies. 

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely - which is why I go back to it, an unconstitutional law is just that, unconstitutional. Any violation gets wound back to when the law was issued.

Trivialities slip by. A severe non-triviality -- like a law that imposes higher taxes on people due to race or religion -- would get swift attention. Unconstitutionality is a severe blow to the validity of any part of a law, but it is generally not a mass opinion or partisan claim of unconstitutionality  of a law that makes the act unconstitutional.

I would have never given the majority ruling on Kelo or Citizens United.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure why you regard me as a 'friend' of the 'economic elites'. I just happen to observe that these elites tend not to like things that constrain them, like the constitution.
[/quote]

OK. Those who lean Right in America now largely endorse the power of entrenched economic elites over employers and consumers. At the extreme, fascists (as opposed to mere 'conservative authoritarians') deny any constraints to the merger of corporate and State power.  The libertarians are not the dominant force on the Right.