Curbing Judicial Activism

[saveliberty]

The First Amendment

Vague poster is vague.

 

[Nemo]

Name one right that is not subject to law.

 

[saveliberty]

Name one right that is not subject to law.

Reposting the same post is spam and not allowed on USMB. Care to edit?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is not helpful to attempt to divine the original intent of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight. Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic in our views. (We no longer go about our lives in powdered wigs and small clothes.) I think it must be admitted that the Constitution is a "living document," as evident by the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times since its adoption by the several states; which is a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the framers in making provision for such future changes. Surely, they could not have intended that we be ruled by their dead hands.

Times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.

1. "It is not helpful to attempt to divine the original intent of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight."


Progressive propaganda.


Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander.

All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”



2. "...Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic...."

Justice Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.”

Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead.

Would you, Brennan, or the rest of the Progressives, suggest ignoring any of these….or does he simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by?

No, this ‘transformative’ view is simply designed to allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.

Let me just state that if we can divine the meaning of the plays of William Shakespeare, which were written a hell of a lot longer ago than the Constitution, with much more florid, dense, archaic English, and in iambic pentameter, for crying out loud - and we certainly do so, since his plays are taught every day in schools across America - then it is ludicrous for anyone to suggest that we can't POSSIBLY figure out what the hell our Founding Fathers were jabbering about a couple hundred years ago.

And if the suggestion is that it shouldn't MATTER what the laws were intended to mean when written once they've gotten to a certain age, then I would like to know what statute of limitations the retard who suggested this thinks there should be on OTHER laws, such as murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Exactly how long do these laws have to be on the books before they become stale, obsolete, and therefore not "forward-thinking" enough for their words to be relevant and binding?

Nemo: I'm looking at you, Sparkles. If you don't hear how completely laughable your ideas sound right now, rest assured that everyone else does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is an assumption. To say that one has rights retained under the Ninth Amendment (petitio principii “begs the question”) assumes the existence of such rights in the first instance. Under the Constitution, rights exist only by law.

If the Constitution assumes that rights exist only if actually delineated and granted by law, and does not assume rights in existence to begin with which may be retained under the Ninth Amendment, why the fuck does the Constitution CONTAIN the Ninth Amendment saying that exact thing?

Did you actually just tell us that the Constitution does not assume that its own words are correct and have force of law?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No. You are not born with any rights. All rights exist by law, and the law alone. There are no rights without law; no rights contrary to law; no rights superior to law. That is the way it is under the Constitution. We live under the "rule of law".

You've actually never read the Constitution, have you?

 

[Nemo]

Yes, I have read the Constitution - many, many times. I carry a pocket copy with me, and its well-thumbed pages can attest to my devoted reading.

I learned constitutional law from Laurence Tribe, who is the foremost exponent on the subject; his treatise American Constitutional Law 3d is the standard reference. I once asked Professor Tribe a question relating to constitutional interpretation, to which he answered: "The Constitution does not mean what it says." I thought he was jesting at the time; but after over 40 years of reading Supreme Court reports, I have come to think that he meant what he said.

 

[Nemo]

I would add one more comment to my response to Post# 166, supra. When I said that you are not born with any rights, I was referring to "natural" as opposed to "legal' rights. Under the Constitution, your only birthright is that of citizenship as defined by law. 8 U.S.C. § 1401, et seq.

 

[saveliberty]

Oh I believe Nemo has read it and studied it. Look at David Keresh or the folks at Jonestown. If you have a view and read and study hard enough, you can trick yourself into believing what you read is exactly what you think.

This only works if you allow great latitude in "interpreting" the document or book. I will simply say that anyone who puts their faith in government and laws over the Constitution is inviting a loss of liberty.

 

[saveliberty]

The Architects of the Constitution were very careful to craft a Democratic Republic. It is not simply a majority rules. That is why one branch creates law, another enforces while a third applies it. As a check not all are elected by popular vote. Yet, after carefully making this system some think a body of nine appointed people can simply interpret laws in any fashion they deem appropriate. This totally defeats the system as a whole.

 

[Nemo]

That is, in part, correct. The United States is not a direct democracy, it is a constitutional republic. U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4. It is a representative form of government, albeit there is now provision for initiatives to be enacted into law directly by public referendum, e.g., Proposition 8 initiative in California for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the State constitution that was ruled unconstitutional. Perry v. Schwartzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d (ND Cal. 2010). However, the power of the judiciary is not just separate and coequal, but independent in its authority to interpret the Constitution. Unto this last, you can rest assured that the Supreme Court will not be overturning Marbury v. Madison anytime soon.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, I have read the Constitution - many, many times. I carry a pocket copy with me, and its well-thumbed pages can attest to my devoted reading.

I learned constitutional law from Laurence Tribe, who is the foremost exponent on the subject; his treatise American Constitutional Law 3d is the standard reference. I once asked Professor Tribe a question relating to constitutional interpretation, to which he answered: "The Constitution does not mean what it says." I thought he was jesting at the time; but after over 40 years of reading Supreme Court reports, I have come to think that he meant what he said.

Oh, really? You're a big Constitutional expert, are you? Spare me the lecture about you. I assure you, even your mother does not find you interesting, and she isn't here.

The Constitution does not mean what it says? Because some fuckstain professor somewhere said so? I don't think so. This isn't Wonderland, Alice: laws mean what the words say, because that's the entire fucking point of the exercise.

What he SHOULD have said - and would have said, if he'd been a person, instead of a lawyer - was, "Judges don't care what the Constitution says." Judges, after all, are merely lawyers in robes, and only people so unskilled with independent thought that they are afraid to even try it are willing to nod blindly while someone tells them that black REALLY means white.

While we're trading quotes, here's one from someone people have actually heard of and admire: William Shakespeare, who said, ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.''

Thank you for illustrating why.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is, in part, correct. The United States is not a direct democracy, it is a constitutional republic. U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4. It is a representative form of government, albeit there is now provision for initiatives to be enacted into law directly by public referendum, e.g., Proposition 8 initiative in California for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the State constitution that was ruled unconstitutional. Perry v. Schwartzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d (ND Cal. 2010). However, the power of the judiciary is not just separate and coequal, but independent in its authority to interpret the Constitution. Unto this last, you can rest assured that the Supreme Court will not be overturning Marbury v. Madison anytime soon.

Yes, we are all duly impressed by your ability to blindly cut and paste from people who can do what you obviously cannot: think.

However, if I want to read quotes, I'll go look up the website itself and read it. Seeing it vomited at me as though its your own original thought is not what this message board is for. And by the way, cutting and pasting this way without attribution is against the rules here. It's called "plagiarism".

 

[saveliberty]

You mean like this Cecile?

The United States is not a true democracy. See U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4. It is a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government, albeit there is now provision for initiatives to be enacted into law directly by public referendum (e.g. Proposition 8 ballot initiative in California for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the State constitution).

Does Constitution still serve us?

 

[saveliberty]

Jig is up dude. Quote sources or get turned in.

 

[Nemo]

They are my original posts. I have posted on other discussion forums under several monikers including W.J. Wilczek, WJW, Wendell Phillips, Mr. Jaggers, Richard Savage, Graham Garner, G.R.A. Garner, H. Muir, and most frequently Nemo, which is Latin for “no one” that was the pseudonym for the lover of Lady Deadlock and the mysterious law writer in Charles Dickens novel Bleak House.

 

[saveliberty]

Most frequently? Your moniker has been here since 2011. Rather disingenuous, perhaps you should still quote to follow rules here. Proving you are one in the same would be difficult at best.

 

[saveliberty]

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to President Barack Obama, said the president “obviously misspoke” earlier this week when he made comments about the Supreme Court possibly overturning the health-care law.

Mr. Tribe, who calls the president one of his best students, said in an interview: “He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”

Mr. Tribe said he saw no reason for the president to express his views on the matter, because everyone already knows he wants the case upheld.

“I don’t think anything was gained by his making these comments and I don’t think any harm was done,” Mr. Tribe said, “except by public confusion.”

The dust-up began Monday, when Mr. Obama was asked about the law and said it would be a prime example of judicial overreach if the Supreme Court ruled against it. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” he said

Laurence Tribe: Obama Misspoke on Supreme Court - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[saveliberty]

In 2004, Tribe admitted he had failed to attribute several specific phrases and a sentence in his 1985 book, God Save this Honorable Court, to a 1974 book by Henry Abraham.[9][10] After an investigation, Tribe was reprimanded for "a significant lapse in proper academic practice" but concluded that Tribe's error was unintentional.

Laurence Tribe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to President Barack Obama, said the president “obviously misspoke” earlier this week when he made comments about the Supreme Court possibly overturning the health-care law.

Mr. Tribe, who calls the president one of his best students, said in an interview: “He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”

Mr. Tribe said he saw no reason for the president to express his views on the matter, because everyone already knows he wants the case upheld.

“I don’t think anything was gained by his making these comments and I don’t think any harm was done,” Mr. Tribe said, “except by public confusion.”

The dust-up began Monday, when Mr. Obama was asked about the law and said it would be a prime example of judicial overreach if the Supreme Court ruled against it. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” he said

Laurence Tribe: Obama Misspoke on Supreme Court - Washington Wire - WSJ

“He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”

What a coincidence!

That was what the Liberal judges who found that subsidies could be given to everyone said!!
They claim that Congress ...."didn’t say what it meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, they had to clarify it.”

As follows:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...049-the-chimera-of-liberal-jurisprudence.html