Myths about American politics...

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

5. That really depends on how you define "conservative nation".  But it is true that conservatives vastly outnumber liberals when asked for self-identification in polls.

Self-identification is a horrible way of measuring this thing. How about support for liberal policies-which a majority of Americans support?

If the issues were decided by popular vote, America would have universal health care. However, 'liberal' has been made into a dirty word by the right-wing establishment.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I did not give them much though, but what are your thoughts on these ten?

- American politics is a bipolar contest betwixt "liberals" and "conservatives."
- Donors and interest groups oft buy the votes of most high elected officials.
- All American politicians are unprincipled, opportunistic, and lie to win votes.
- Democrats dislike free enterprise, and are disloyal to the U.S. Constitution.
- Republicans do not care about human suffering, poverty, or social injustice.
- The invasion and occupation of Iraq was centered on securing oil interests.
- Social conservatives are closed-minded bigots who reject science and logic.
- Liberals try to punish hard work, foster dependency, and repress Christians.
- Ones vote in an election does not matter because elites call all of the shots.
- Compromise and bipartisanship will yield the best solutions to our problems.

I actually agree with most of these.

The idea that one's opinions on gay marriage serve as a proxy for whether one is homophobic or not verges on the ridiculous.

How so?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

But the general principles to be upheld were laid out, and the rest of the document is a guide as to how to achieve them; but when we disagree about how to best achieve those principles, the proper place to resolve those disagreements is at the ballot box, not in the courts. IMO the courts should only intervene when Constutitional princples are being clearly violated by the law.

What if the Constitution is unclear on a matter? Should we leave it up to the people to decide what the Constitution says?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

Yes.  They were.  And equal protection under the law is something that should be enforced in schools, because that's a public institution.

But private institutions can defy the Constitution all they want, right?