"Strict constructionist judges”?

"'Strict construction' is a manner of interpreting the U.S. Constitution using a literal and narrow definition of language in the document without regard to changes that have occurred in American society since the 18th century document was written.”
- "Trump to Nominate 'Strict Constructionist' to Supreme Court", New York Times, 2017-01-26

I find that it strange that “strict constructionists” manage to interpret “We the People” as “We the Corporations”, to interpret that Congress has no right to regulate commerce among the states, and to interpret that “the people” in the second amendment means persons.

Will one of these "strict constructionists" strike down any anti-Muslim actions by Trump?  Remember all those "Christians" who want their freedom to discriminate.  If these judges were “strict constructionists” they would rule that people are free to believe what they want, but they can’t practice whatever they want when it impinges on others.

Will one of these “strict constructionists” stop Trump if he goes to war without the approval of Congress?

If you read George Washington’s “Farewell Address”, you will find a lot about the “intent” of the Founders and how much governments (of whatever party) have not followed the “intent” very well.  See “George Washington: Ignored Father of His Country".

If you can, watch a movie on John Marshall, an early Chief Justice, who struggled with many of these questions.

Quote of the day: corporation interest in strong dollar

"The reason that our government doesn’t intervene to push down the value of the dollar is that powerful U.S. transnational corporations like Wal-Mart prefer a strong dollar because it makes imports and overseas labor cheaper for them.”

“Will Trump outdo Obama in handling US-China: No: Even before taking office, Trump has made a mess”
- Mark Weisbrot, Duluth News Tribune, 2016-01-07

The “other side” is “Yes: His policies will protect our allies, economy, citizens from Chinese bullying”
- Pete Hoekstra

Why does so much writing, politics, and whatever have to be either/or?  There are so many more considerations than “either side” puts forth.

In support of Weisbrot, I’d cite “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”  Also, Republicans have turned the Constitution upside down so many times; in this case they have replaced Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states to commerce having the power to regulate Congress!!

I wonder if any other democratic nation has as many “pariah” states as the United States: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.  Yet we support many broken or rigid states far worse than Iran.

Problem of conservative/liberal labeling

We see too much about liberal bias against conservatives and conservative bias against liberals.  But do we even know what a conservative or liberal is?

Are those who think billionaires should be free to run their companies without any government interference liberals or conservatives?  They are certainly "liberal" in their interpretation of the Constitution.  The true conservatives are those who believe the Constitution's power to the Congress to "regulate commerce among the states".

Are those who think the Constitution starts with "We the People" means persons as a collective liberal or conservative?  It seems that so-called conservatives are rather liberal in interpreting the opening clause as "We the Corporations".

Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about liberals and conservatives in academia.  For some of the letters in response see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/politics-and-academia.html.

If "conservatives" have a problem being accepted into academia it may be because they are not open to change.  A true academic is a liberal-conservative: liberal in open to new views and conservative in evaluating evidence.