Former Justice Stephen Breyer says that if you interpret the Constitution they way it reads, it will give us a Constitution we do not want.

[Libby von H]

I have said all this to say this, there will always be an element of society that believes our rights come from God and not Potato head. That means that no matter what man says, there will be a value placed on man as being equal, no matter their race, sex, or gestational development. This is the rub former justices like Breyer cannot wrap their minds around. I could care less what he thinks, but if the truth be known, the reverse is true. If there was a consensus that abortion was bad, Breyer and his minions would be fighting to change public opinion on the issue.

And the Left will never admit this, but there is also a contingent of non-religious people who are concerned about the issue of abortion. After all, when does a human become a human? This is never asked. This is never attempted to be answered. Why? Because that my friends is opening a whole bag of worms, a bag the Left can never win. It is the same question that was asked of the slave, are the equals? Are they really human?

That is the rub that no court ruling, constitutional amendment, or legislation can ever fix or be agreed upon. The dirty little secret is, neither side really gives a damn what the Constitution has to say about it. If it disagrees with them, they will "fix" it.

So, deal with it and stop your whining!!!

It will forever be an open wound upon society

No , equality never meant that. And it came from the states first.
THomas G West's study of the Founnding : " “almost all of the men and women of the founding generation believed that all men and women are created equal.” SO YOU ARE WAAAAAY OFF THERE>.

 

[Dragonlady]

He wasnt talking about amending it, foreigner.

Yes he was talkinig about the need to amend it, to deal with modern issues and problems.

 

[TNHarley]

Yes he was talkinig about the need to amend it, to deal with modern issues and problems.

Learn to read
The journalist asked Breyer about his point in the book warning about "originalism," noting that Breyer has called this lens of interpretation "inherently ‘regressive,’" writing that it "will not permit modern solutions to modern problems" as well as consigning "us to a set of views and values that predominated during a period when many groups of people today were not equal citizens."

 

[eagle1462010]

The main purpose of the Founders was to limit govt. They warned what would happen if the govt got power to do anything they please.

They long ago rolled over in their graves.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

MSN

In a recent interview with Politico, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer claimed that the current conservative majority on the court will give the U.S. a Constitution that "no one wants."

Breyer spoke to the media outlet ahead of the release of his new book, titled, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism." In it, the former liberal justice spent time criticizing the interpretations his former conservative colleagues have been making in landmark Supreme Court cases.

He elaborated on these points in the interview. Politico Magazine senior writer Ankush Khardori reported, "If the court continues to deploy their methods of interpretation, Breyer told me, ‘We will have a Constitution that no one wants.’ It’s a remarkable statement from a former Supreme Court justice."

The journalist asked Breyer about his point in the book warning about "originalism," noting that Breyer has called this lens of interpretation "inherently ‘regressive,’" writing that it "will not permit modern solutions to modern problems" as well as consigning "us to a set of views and values that predominated during a period when many groups of people today were not equal citizens."

Breyer affirmed those points in the interview, declaring, "When the founders were thinking about and writing the words of the Constitution and protecting certain basic rights in the Constitution, women were not really part of the political process. They didn’t have a right to vote, and there was slavery, and the slaves weren’t part of [the political process either]."

This is a good illustration between conservatism vs. and the Left. The Left honestly believes that the original Constitution codifies slavery and women as second class citizens, when conservatives do not. In fact, the Constitution does not really touch on the issue of slavery except for the fugitive clause.


As in the other references in the Constitution dealing with slavery, the words "slave" and "slavery" are not used in this clause. Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes that throughout the Constitution there was the intent to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law, not federal law. In this instance, Fehrenbacher concludes:

The genius of the Constitution allowed basic freedoms for all without mentioning race or sex which is why it can still be used today with our current laws. The implication for not mentioning race or sex is that it has no real relevance, something that is far more Progressive than what you see the Left espouse every single day.

There is also the 3/5 person clause in the Constitution which dealt with population levels related to representation. Most think of the compromise as racist, that a black slave is not 3/5 of a human being because they are a full human being. But in reality, it was used by abolitionists to reduce the political power of the slave states. Slave states could not use the slaves to be counted as population, thus reducing their power in Congress. I would even argue that they should not have been counted at all since they were not being represented by their representatives.

That aside, these items were later repealed in the Constitution, and rightly so.

The Constitution never made the claim that it was perfect, which is why the Founding Fathers allowed it to be repealed or added to. But it seems to me that there is an underlying hatred by the Left towards the Constitution. It is an attitude that the Constitution is so fundamentally flawed, repealing and/or amending the items that you see as having flaws is not the solution, rather, the solution is simply to interpret those flaws out of the text itself, thus bypassing the amendment or repealing process. It is the attitude that it takes far too much time and effort to do so, and it takes far too many voices and opinions to hear, so the only solution is to interpret what you don't like in the Constitution away instead.

He is correct.

By a literal reading of the 2nd amendment, I could ban all guns except for single shot musket loaders. But everyone gets to own one.

Is that what you want?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Warren Court and subsequent versions of it showed us how a small group of Leftists in positions of un-elected power can change the founding document of our government into something that they liked better. This is called, "Legislating from the bench." The problem with it - aside from perverting our founding principles - is that it is almost impossible for the People, acting through their elected representatives, to re-implement the basic principles.

While abortion was the best example, we also have things like the virtual elimination of the death penalty, the mandate of gay "marriage," and the Exclusionary Rule, which frees thousands of violent criminals annually, because the evidence against them was procured in a way that the Court deems not-nice. None of this was in the Constitution, and yet we are still stuck with them.

Where did you get "the virtual elimination of the death penalty". The death penalty is alive and well in 24 states, mostly red.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The real reason the former justice went on his rant, however, was because of Roe vs. Wade being overturned.

In a recent interview with NBC’s "Meet The Press," Breyer expressed his feelings on the Dobbs ruling, telling host Kristen Welker he had hoped he and his fellow justices at the time could have come to a "compromise" rather than overturning Roe V. Wade.

During that interview, he also called the leak of the Dobbs opinion signaling the end of Roe V. Wade "unfortunate."

Later in the interview, Breyer described what could result from this originalist interpretation of the Constitution over time, stating it "will move the interpretation of statutes away from the direction of trying to help people," and "will move the law away from the direction of trying to produce a society where 340 or 330 or 320 million people of every race, every religion, every point of view, can live together more peacefully and productively."

This was the real rub that caused him to speak out in such a way.

I would have loved for someone to ask the former justice where our rights come from. Do they come from God or man?

A reporter from Politico lashed out at Christian Nationalism, whatever that is, by mocking them for thinking our rights come from God and not man. The problem is, is that this was precisely the view of the Founding Fathers.

MSN

In reality, the joke was on the reporter for being ignorant enough not to know this. But knowing this today, does she care? I say no. I say that the average Progressive today does not believe our rights come from God, and instead they come from men like Joe Biden and they could care less what the Founding Fathers thought about the issue because it is just one of their many flaws. This means that there is no real right or wrong, which is why the goal is always achieving the majority consensus because consensus is now what is now used to measure to see if something is right or wrong. Now that the state manipulates both the media and education to steer consensus, the gospel of democracy is preached on every corner to proclaim what is right or wrong, good or bad. That is now why you see state by state adding to their constitution the right to gambling, smoking weed, or abortion by a mere consensus vote as these things that were once considered a vice, are now considered good for society.

Having said that, the irony is that those in power don't really care what the majority thinks. That is the dirty little secret. For example, do they really care that about 80% of the population wants term limits for Congress or some sort of balanced budget amendment? Nope. Does former justice Breyer? Nope. But propaganda can't seem to fix that as the population inherently knows it needs to be done despite what those in power wish you to think, so they just ignore it.

That just shows 80% of the population is stupid to believe Congress will ever term limit themselves and that a balanced budget amendment could be written and enforced by the same people. The fox would be guarding the hen house.

 

[sparky]

The fox would be guarding the hen house.

I would say that's a given Admiral......~S~

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

MSN

In a recent interview with Politico, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer claimed that the current conservative majority on the court will give the U.S. a Constitution that "no one wants."

Breyer spoke to the media outlet ahead of the release of his new book, titled, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism." In it, the former liberal justice spent time criticizing the interpretations his former conservative colleagues have been making in landmark Supreme Court cases.

He elaborated on these points in the interview. Politico Magazine senior writer Ankush Khardori reported, "If the court continues to deploy their methods of interpretation, Breyer told me, ‘We will have a Constitution that no one wants.’ It’s a remarkable statement from a former Supreme Court justice."

The journalist asked Breyer about his point in the book warning about "originalism," noting that Breyer has called this lens of interpretation "inherently ‘regressive,’" writing that it "will not permit modern solutions to modern problems" as well as consigning "us to a set of views and values that predominated during a period when many groups of people today were not equal citizens."

Breyer affirmed those points in the interview, declaring, "When the founders were thinking about and writing the words of the Constitution and protecting certain basic rights in the Constitution, women were not really part of the political process. They didn’t have a right to vote, and there was slavery, and the slaves weren’t part of [the political process either]."

This is a good illustration between conservatism vs. and the Left. The Left honestly believes that the original Constitution codifies slavery and women as second class citizens, when conservatives do not. In fact, the Constitution does not really touch on the issue of slavery except for the fugitive clause.


As in the other references in the Constitution dealing with slavery, the words "slave" and "slavery" are not used in this clause. Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes that throughout the Constitution there was the intent to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law, not federal law. In this instance, Fehrenbacher concludes:

The genius of the Constitution allowed basic freedoms for all without mentioning race or sex which is why it can still be used today with our current laws. The implication for not mentioning race or sex is that it has no real relevance, something that is far more Progressive than what you see the Left espouse every single day.

There is also the 3/5 person clause in the Constitution which dealt with population levels related to representation. Most think of the compromise as racist, that a black slave is not 3/5 of a human being because they are a full human being. But in reality, it was used by abolitionists to reduce the political power of the slave states. Slave states could not use the slaves to be counted as population, thus reducing their power in Congress. I would even argue that they should not have been counted at all since they were not being represented by their representatives.

That aside, these items were later repealed in the Constitution, and rightly so.

The Constitution never made the claim that it was perfect, which is why the Founding Fathers allowed it to be repealed or added to. But it seems to me that there is an underlying hatred by the Left towards the Constitution. It is an attitude that the Constitution is so fundamentally flawed, repealing and/or amending the items that you see as having flaws is not the solution, rather, the solution is simply to interpret those flaws out of the text itself, thus bypassing the amendment or repealing process. It is the attitude that it takes far too much time and effort to do so, and it takes far too many voices and opinions to hear, so the only solution is to interpret what you don't like in the Constitution away instead.

A Supreme Set of Laws Is Like Asking Parents for Permission

 

[sparky]

While distancing it from 'we the peeps' Sage....~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

MSN

In a recent interview with Politico, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer claimed that the current conservative majority on the court will give the U.S. a Constitution that "no one wants."

Breyer spoke to the media outlet ahead of the release of his new book, titled, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism." In it, the former liberal justice spent time criticizing the interpretations his former conservative colleagues have been making in landmark Supreme Court cases.

He elaborated on these points in the interview. Politico Magazine senior writer Ankush Khardori reported, "If the court continues to deploy their methods of interpretation, Breyer told me, ‘We will have a Constitution that no one wants.’ It’s a remarkable statement from a former Supreme Court justice."

The journalist asked Breyer about his point in the book warning about "originalism," noting that Breyer has called this lens of interpretation "inherently ‘regressive,’" writing that it "will not permit modern solutions to modern problems" as well as consigning "us to a set of views and values that predominated during a period when many groups of people today were not equal citizens."

Breyer affirmed those points in the interview, declaring, "When the founders were thinking about and writing the words of the Constitution and protecting certain basic rights in the Constitution, women were not really part of the political process. They didn’t have a right to vote, and there was slavery, and the slaves weren’t part of [the political process either]."

This is a good illustration between conservatism vs. and the Left. The Left honestly believes that the original Constitution codifies slavery and women as second class citizens, when conservatives do not. In fact, the Constitution does not really touch on the issue of slavery except for the fugitive clause.


As in the other references in the Constitution dealing with slavery, the words "slave" and "slavery" are not used in this clause. Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes that throughout the Constitution there was the intent to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law, not federal law. In this instance, Fehrenbacher concludes:

The genius of the Constitution allowed basic freedoms for all without mentioning race or sex which is why it can still be used today with our current laws. The implication for not mentioning race or sex is that it has no real relevance, something that is far more Progressive than what you see the Left espouse every single day.

There is also the 3/5 person clause in the Constitution which dealt with population levels related to representation. Most think of the compromise as racist, that a black slave is not 3/5 of a human being because they are a full human being. But in reality, it was used by abolitionists to reduce the political power of the slave states. Slave states could not use the slaves to be counted as population, thus reducing their power in Congress. I would even argue that they should not have been counted at all since they were not being represented by their representatives.

That aside, these items were later repealed in the Constitution, and rightly so.

The Constitution never made the claim that it was perfect, which is why the Founding Fathers allowed it to be repealed or added to. But it seems to me that there is an underlying hatred by the Left towards the Constitution. It is an attitude that the Constitution is so fundamentally flawed, repealing and/or amending the items that you see as having flaws is not the solution, rather, the solution is simply to interpret those flaws out of the text itself, thus bypassing the amendment or repealing process. It is the attitude that it takes far too much time and effort to do so, and it takes far too many voices and opinions to hear, so the only solution is to interpret what you don't like in the Constitution away instead.

The Founders gave us a Constitution that allows for amendment to remedy things that the original text cannot address. For example we have an amendment that ended slavery and all forms of involuntary servitude once and for all and was intended to put that whole issue to bed once and for all. The Thirteenth Amendment passed the House of Representatives and the Senate and was ratified by the states 159 year ago.

That Stephen Breyer would use whatever opinion members of the Court might have on any given subject instead of the letter and intent of the Constitution is so chilling and unimaginable I can't come up with any rationale of any kind to support it.

We already have a federal government that so overreaches the authority that the Constitution intended for it that we are mired in an unknowable, unmanageable, unaffordable mess of a government as it is. That an oligarchy of 9 Supreme Court Justices would be given authority to just make up what they think the law should be as they go along would no doubt result in a tyranny that certainly no American should want.

I honestly thought Breyer was smarter and more grounded than to even suggest that.

 

[scruffy]

He is correct.

By a literal reading of the 2nd amendment, I could ban all guns except for single shot musket loaders. But everyone gets to own one.

Is that what you want?

You? And Breyer?

Both of you dumb fucktards are clueless.

My weapons are MINE, they're none of your concern

 

[StatesRightsForever]

The constitution was based on states rights. That's why the FF gave us the tenth amendment. If we enforced the 10A, 99% of what the feds do would be declared unconstitutional.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

While distancing it from 'we the peeps' Sage....~S~

Wits Wearing Wigs

"We, the elitist egotistic know-it-alls at this Constitutional Convention, are the people who know what's best for the stinking masses."

 

[Resnic]

How so exactly?

The constitution was with us from when we went from nothing at all to a major world super power. That carried us for hundreds of years as we grew evolved, became respected and feared, we were prosperous, rich, even the average American could easily have a nice house with a nice car and take a family vacation every year, almost all countries traded in our dollar and so on.

All that lasted up until the past 20 years when we started to decline and the past 3 or 4 years when people started speaking out about the constitution. So why all the sudden is the constitution not good enough anymore?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Founders gave us a Constitution that allows for amendment to remedy things that the original text cannot address. For example we have an amendment that ended slavery and all forms of involuntary servitude once and for all and was intended to put that whole issue to bed once and for all. The Thirteenth Amendment passed the House of Representatives and the Senate and was ratified by the states 159 year ago.

That Stephen Breyer would use whatever opinion members of the Court might have on any given subject instead of the letter and intent of the Constitution is so chilling and unimaginable I can't come up with any rationale of any kind to support it.

We already have a federal government that so overreaches the authority that the Constitution intended for it that we are mired in an unknowable, unmanageable, unaffordable mess of a government as it is. That an oligarchy of 9 Supreme Court Justices would be given authority to just make up what they think the law should be as they go along would no doubt result in a tyranny that certainly no American should want.

I honestly thought Breyer was smarter and more grounded than to even suggest that.

The Original Intent Was to Block the Citizens' Self-Determination

 

[Foxfyre]

The Original Intent Was to Block the Citizens' Self-Determination

You will have a hell of a time coming up with ANY comment by ANY of the Founders to support that. That is indeed what the Marxist left wants to use it for. But the Founders wanted a nation of, for and by the people in which the federal government interfered with the citizens' self determination as little as possible. and still protect their unalienable rights.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The constitution was based on states rights. That's why the FF gave us the tenth amendment. If we enforced the 10A, 99% of what the feds do would be declared unconstitutional.

The States Are Also Run by Oligarchic Cliques

Typical of Constitution-bangers, you use federal tyranny to justify imposing state tyranny instead. Either way, the representativist systems puts the common people in a straitjacket.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The constitution was with us from when we went from nothing at all to a major world super power. That carried us for hundreds of years as we grew evolved, became respected and feared, we were prosperous, rich, even the average American could easily have a nice house with a nice car and take a family vacation every year, almost all countries traded in our dollar and so on.

All that lasted up until the past 20 years when we started to decline and the past 3 or 4 years when people started speaking out about the constitution. So why all the sudden is the constitution not good enough anymore?

Fanatics Follow Failed Father-Figures

Our former success had nothing to do with the Constitution. It came in spite of the Constitution, which inhibited progress but couldn't block the natural independence of the American people. But during these last decadent decades, the malignant growth of the inevitably smug and stagnant heiristocracy reached a point where it became strong enough to overwhelm the excluded classes that created the previous prosperity.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You will have a hell of a time coming up with ANY comment by ANY of the Founders to support that. That is indeed what the Marxist left wants to use it for. But the Founders wanted a nation of, for and by the people in which the federal government interfered with the citizens' self determination as little as possible. and still protect their unalienable rights.

Pathetic Pushy Preaching

Who tells you to glorify this hidden elitism? You're parroting self-important blowhards because it make you feel important. Those who benefit the most from it and have the thought-control dominance to make their self-appointed rule stick. They claim credit for every success made by those they exclude from being respected.