via The Right Stuff
death of Antonin Scalia has led to quite a bit of hyperbole, from claiming that his successor could determine the fate of the planet, to God taking Scalia in order to help Rafael "Refito" Edward "Ted" Cruz win the election.
The inference from #cuckservatives is that the American electorate
needs to select a "constitutional conservative" for POTUS in order to
keep the Supreme Court from tilting too #libshit, and oh, by the way, Trump is NOT a "constitutional conservative."
The entire discussion is retarded.
The #cuckservatives at AmCon had claimed a few years back that this idea of "constitutional conservativism" was fairly new and seemed to be aimed at differentiating themselves from Shrub's brand of "compassionate conservatism." You see, even in 2010, the GOP was aware that Dubya had been the worst President since Carter, and it took a while before President Butt Naked would surpass him on that account.
We can see that this isn't really true if we compare it to some
other, similar terms, which are hundreds of times more commonly used.
It’s become apparent that what these #cuckservatives want to do is
invoke the warm fuzzies by having their electorate believe that
“constitutional conservatives” will select for the Supreme Court only
judges who use originalism as their guiding principle when interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s at least marginally worthwhile to have the
discussion about originalism, because without some form of reference to
the Founders' intent, the Constitution means merely whatever some group
of old Jewish lesbians says it means, and Oy Vey!, nobody wants THAT.
Take a look at the wiki for originalism, it's actually quite funny. Original intent is quite clearly the only logical means of interpretation, despite all the kvetching
about its difficulties in practice, but here they are at Wikipedia
spending much larger amounts of text on original meaning, semantic
originalism, framework originalism, and methodology. It’s almost as if
there’s a fifth column at work at that site. I can pretty clearly see
the hand of the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory doctrine at work in
these later interpretation methods, and this Dworkin guy referenced,
where have I heard that last name before?
Any intellectually honest student of American history knows, however,
that the original intent of the Founders in several matters is very
clear, and that in today's political environment, their original intent
is also publicly inexpressible. The intent of the Founders was to have
a State comprising a nation of WASPs with some number of Negro slaves
tolerated, and to build said State for the purpose of handing it down to
their children, with immigration being tolerated only for Northwestern
Europeans from outside.
The Preamble clearly states the purpose of the document is to provide certain benefits “to ourselves and our posterity". While posterity
can have a couple of different meanings, the word “our” suggests the
preferred meaning wasn't a general future, but rather, a specific group
of related and/or descended persons.
The early voting rights laws
of the English Colonies make it clear that it most of the Founders
intended to live in a Republic of WASPs, barring the vote to Catholics,
Jews, and even some of the Radical Reformation groups such as Quakers.
It was only those damnable unlicensed Baptist preachers and James
Madison who pushed for Article 6 of the Constitution to disavow any
religious tests for office, but, again, intent was clearly WASPish and
not to allow Jews, Catholics, or even Christian Orthodox or Muslims to
vote or hold office. Maryland kept those fucking kikes out of office
until 1828! And all of the above is over and beyond the non-rights of
non-Huwhytes to the vote for many more decades.
A look at the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 is instructive; the United States was for Huwhytes. Even the Indian Citizen Act of 1924
makes it clear that the Negroes were only tolerated and allowed to vote
as punishment for the conquered Confederacy under Reconstruction, and
that the 14th Amendment was not intended in any way to confer
“birthright citizenship” to “anchor babies.”
The USA was unquestionably founded by WASPs, for WASPs, based on
English common law, and intended to tolerate immigration only from those
compatible with the above. THIS was the Founders’ ORIGINAL INTENT.
And, clearly, it’s probably no longer feasible to cleave to this intent,
at least, not without an awful lot of rope and a whole lot of hard
work. Indeed, it would be impossible in the current year to find a
sitting judge, attorney, or even someone in law school or considering
same to come out and say that the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes with
respect to the real founding intent, as anybody cleaving to such a
plain historical meaning would either be shamed out of a job or flunked
out of college.
Therefore, anybody speaking non-ironically about originalism or a
constitutionalist appointee to the Supreme Court is really just fucking
Which brings one to face another concept, that of constitutionalism
itself, the idea of a social contract State which derives its authority
from its founding documents. One of the greatest political thinkers of
the last century dealt with this in chapter two of volume two of that
book about his struggle, and the bottom line point of the matter is
this: the only valid conception of the State is that it exists for the
furtherance of the Nation, the people from whom its founding originated. The words of the Preamble
make it clear that the Fathers agreed with Adolf on these points, that
the authority rests in the people themselves, who are a distinct group
which does not consist of all peoples (“We the People of the United
States”), and that they create and establish the State (“do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America”) in order
to serve (“in order to ... “)those people and their descendants (“to
ourselves and our Posterity”). The people are what’s important, not the
State, and certainly not its apparatus or its founding documents.
Ergo, calls to the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land,” the
Constitution Party, LOLbertarianism, appeals to “natural law,” etc.,
have always been merely the misinformed and misguided children of the
so-called “Enlightenment.” As the people inhabiting the country became
more and more heterogeneous, the above references became more and more
The initial situation of the thirteen original colonies was not too untenable, even though Alexis de Tocqueville
famously pointed out the differences in culture between north and south
and stressed the Puritan founding of the State. But with the Louisiana Purchase,
things got worse, as it was feared that all of those Papist French and
Spanish bastards, along with free Negroes and Mulattos, would fail to
integrate (little did they know that the post-revolution flood of
French-speaking Haitians into New Orleans would add to the problem,
intentionally so on the part of the French Creole community), and it was
correctly thought by some that the Western people’s interests would
conflict with that of the (((merchants and bankers))) of New England
(the real cause of the War of Northern Aggression). Giving the dindus a
vote didn’t help matters, and neither did letting all of those kikes in
at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. The
increasing heterogeneity of the State has contributed to its death, and
arguably the worst of the additions was that of the Jew, who furthered
and accelerated the process through being behind the largest change in immigration laws in USA history.
The Constitution of the United States of America.
It’s just a piece of paper, goyim.
Instead of worrying about MUH CONSTITUTION, shouldn't the Right
really be considering only true rightist ideologues for appointments, or
stacking the court,
or some form of Caesarism a.k.a. Presidential rule by decree? Because
ironically enough, it seems the only way to return to the Founding
Fathers’ original intent of the Constitution is to take steps in the
interim that totally fucking ignore the actual words written in the
Or is that just LARPing on my part?