On 'Smarting'

I am still 'smarting' about something that I read yesterday, in the excellent read that I am slowly making my through - allowing for absorbing the details - on the changes that have been made over time in the judicial interpretations of the Constitution, a book entitled 'Who Killed The Constitution?' by Thomas E. Woods, ,Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman.  It was brought up for me again earlier today, when I posted a comment that I made to an article on the subject of California - as 'progressive' as they come, with such as mandatory vaccinations, and a whole host of other arrogantly totalitarian ideas - now looking to jail people who fail to use the 'proper' transgender pronouns, and referred to "the idea of [the Constitution] being 'a living document'.  Otherwise known as a wet noodle."  The passage that I am still 'smarting' over was in a chapter about the changes over time in the extensions of the judicially perceived powers of the chief executive, wherein the authors quoted from the majority opinion of a decision in 1935 (I was approx. one year old at the time; so I couldn't do anything about that decision.  Then) in which the S.C. Justice who wrote it caused me my agro, all these years later.  The authors say that "(h)e admitted that 'the meaning of the Constitution does not change,' but he added that 'its capacity for adaptation is indefinitely flexible.'"

Its capacity for adaptation is indefinitely flexible...

The words in a contract have the capacity for adaptation which is indefinitely flexible...

The mind - or at least, this one - boggles.1  And is put to mind of examples of such chicanery as practiced in our day by the Left, in its 'capacity for innovation in interpretation'.  A couple of examples.

* Attempts to clean up the voter and electoral fraud that has become endemic in the country, by such common-sense measures as requiring photo ID and regular cleansing of the voter registration rolls (to get rid of all illegal alien and other ineligible voters, 'dead' voters, and duplicate/multiple voters), are incidents of 'voter suppression'.
   No they are not.  They are attempts at Election Integrity.  So that legitimate-voter citizens like me are not effectively disenfranchised, by all the fraudulent, illegal voting going on.2

*President Trump is a 'racist' for 'stopping refugees from coming into this country'.3
   No he's not.  Not a 'racist,' and not 'stopping refugees - or other immigrants - from coming in'.  He simply wants - as is his responsibility, as the Chief Executive - a temporary halt in the Refugee program until we can set up more secure vetting procedures for those 'refugees' taking advantage of the program.  The country is being flooded with poorly vetted people from terrorist-infected countries, many of whom are young males of military age.  And, the program is being administered by the UN to boot; which is attempting to make inroads into this country, and put it under UN control, via such slippery initiatives as Agendas 21 and Agenda 2030.
   Which ultimately would - will - require UN boots on the ground.  And a combined 'hit' on the country, between the leftists, the New World Order honchos, and the UN, to submit it to the control/submission of - another name for our day - 'people of color'.  

   Such is the agenda of the NWO mob; in its "capacity" to be just plain dishonest.

   No.  I take that back.

   In its "capacity" to be just plain evil.  In attempting to fasten a totalitarian system of control on the planet. And make all of humanity bend to the will of their (erstwhile) masters.

   Some of an earthly 'nature'.

   And some not.

   All.  About to find out that

   God indeed is great.

--

footnotes:

1 To set the scene, as it were: a reminder that this was in the New Deal Era of FDR, who was trying to get the country out of The Great Depression and was not above trying every trick in the book in order to do so (and in a climate of such top-down governments in many places on the planet).  Even though his attempted packing of the U.S. Supreme Court did not eventuate, those learned gentlemen apparently could read the newspapers of the day, and the writing on the wall...
   To quote from this chapter:
   "Why did [Justice George] Sutherland make this unhistorical argument for presidential discretion in the realm of foreign affairs?  Ultimately, he believed that the events of the first third of the twentieth century demonstrated that more federal power in the area of foreign affairs was desirable.  Rather than a constitutional amendment, then, he opted for an argument that the federal government already inherently had the power he thought it needed to have.
   "Justice Sutherland's view...was that the Constitution did not create an unchanging framework of government.  'As the Nation goes forward,' he wrote, 'the government, which has been organized to put the will of the Nation into operation, must go forward with it and in aid of it; but if the activities of the government are too strictly limited, a drag upon, instead of an aid to this forward progress will result...'
   As excellent an example of sophistry as I have ever come across.

2 Whereby - as I have shared before in these pages - one would be committing a crime to vote.  Would be, more precisely, aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime.
   By these Leftists trying to take over this country.  'By Any Means Necessary.'

3 Or, quote, by the Left: "immigrants".  The 'little matter' of who he is attempting to interdict being illegal aliens - some of whom are up to particularly no good, as in violence in and to this country - apparently being a trifling 'detail' to the Left.  Of little to no consideration.  What we really should have - according to them - is open borders.   So that people can go wherever they wish to go.  In search of jobs.
   And, er.  Crime.
   And getting handouts from the government.
   And giving their patrons their votes.
   Oh what fun!
   Not.