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.

[BluesLegend]

He views the Court as an oligarchy that can override laws through creative interpretation. That can block or force Executive action by judicial fiat. Like all Leftists he's fundamentally a tyrant.

They can amend and change the constitution tomorrow...but they don't have the votes. So the left simply ignore the Constitution and the law. That's seriously messed up.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The Constitution was written to manage a small coastal agrarian country with no military ambitions. Not a sprawling coast to coast nation which is the greatest military power the world has ever seen.

Running a 21st Century superpower based on a Constitution written for a small agrarian coastal nation with no standing army, is the absolute anthithesis of progress or freedom.

The Founders KNEW that times would change and the Constitution needed to change with it. That’s why you can amend it.

The constitution is the framework that created the greatest nation the world has ever known. It has allowed the is great nation to more for the the poor around the world than any other nation. It has advanced the world in every aspect, including science, biology, health care, poverty ect. This is a fact. It is indisputable.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The Constitution was written to manage a small coastal agrarian country with no military ambitions. Not a sprawling coast to coast nation which is the greatest military power the world has ever seen.

Running a 21st Century superpower based on a Constitution written for a small agrarian coastal nation with no standing army, is the absolute anthithesis of progress or freedom.

The Founders KNEW that times would change and the Constitution needed to change with it. That’s why you can amend it.

Yet it was never amended to make us the global bully, I mean, global police.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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.

Can I say one thing. I'm UK, it's an observation.

You guys go on and on and on and on about the wording of your constitution, and you all argue day in and day out of it's interruption, it's meaning etc..

Just throwing it out there, does America, Congress, whoever thinks it needs clarified and rewritten??

Over the years, on various forums, in various countries, no other country argues and goes on and on so much about their constitution. Honestly, have you guys not noticed that???

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Can I say one thing. I'm UK, it's an observation.

You guys go on and on and on and on about the wording of your constitution, and you all argue day in and day out of it's interruption, it's meaning etc..

Just throwing it out there, does America, Congress, whoever thinks it needs clarified and rewritten??

Over the years, on various forums, in various countries, no other country argues and goes on and on so much about their constitution. Honestly, have you guys not noticed that???

For the most part the Constitution is written in plain language that any English speaker can understand without difficulty. The problem is that ideologues and the corrupt don't like the constraints. Amending the Constitution has been done many times, but it's not easy. Thus those who don't like what it says will twist the meaning of plain words to suit their agenda. To be clear, there are plenty of things in the Constitution that I disagree with, but I don't try to con people into thinking that those things mean something other than what they say.

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution was written to manage a small coastal agrarian country with no military ambitions. Not a sprawling coast to coast nation which is the greatest military power the world has ever seen.

Running a 21st Century superpower based on a Constitution written for a small agrarian coastal nation with no standing army, is the absolute anthithesis of progress or freedom.

The Founders KNEW that times would change and the Constitution needed to change with it. That’s why you can amend it.

He wasnt talking about amending it, foreigner.

 

[Foolardi]

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.

I doubt our Founders spent inordinate time and energy crafting
the best document to define an attitude and ability to start and
guarantee the success of a Republic.
Just to have some Liberal ... puke all over it's original
nature.As if Adam puking at the mere sight of a big glossy red
apple.
Alexander Hamilton was onto something.
" Your people is a great beast . "

 

[Foolardi]

I doubt our Founders spent inordinate time and energy crafting
the best document to define an attitude and ability to start and
guarantee the success of a Republic.
Just to have some Liberal ... puke all over it's original
nature.As if Adam puking at the mere sight of a big glossy red
apple.
Alexander Hamilton was onto something.
" Your people is a great beast . "

" Why was government instituted at all ?
Because the passions of men will not conform
to the dictates of reason and justice without
restraint. "
-- Hamilton { The Federalist } 1787-1788

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Can I say one thing. I'm UK, it's an observation.

You guys go on and on and on and on about the wording of your constitution, and you all argue day in and day out of it's interruption, it's meaning etc..

Just throwing it out there, does America, Congress, whoever thinks it needs clarified and rewritten??

Over the years, on various forums, in various countries, no other country argues and goes on and on so much about their constitution. Honestly, have you guys not noticed that???

I wouldn't trust ANYONE alive today to rewrite what our founders wrote. Not one.

 

[22lcidw]

For the most part the Constitution is written in plain language that any English speaker can understand without difficulty. The problem is that ideologues and the corrupt don't like the constraints. Amending the Constitution has been done many times, but it's not easy. Thus those who don't like what it says will twist the meaning of plain words to suit their agenda. To be clear, there are plenty of things in the Constitution that I disagree with, but I don't try to con people into thinking that those things mean something other than what they say.

Just providing for the "General Welfare" with a printing press fiat currency has caused massive problems due to the corruption involved and it does come with huge costs.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Just providing for the "General Welfare" with a printing press fiat currency has caused massive problems due to the corruption involved and it does come with huge costs.

This clause is one of the most abused. The meaning is clear from the text, but the Left takes it to me that the government can do anything it wants under color of general welfare. I think it was James Madison who made the same point, except he was arguing that the Antifederalists were wrong that this would ever happen because the meaning was clear. Turns out the Antifederalists were right.

 

[scruffy]

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.

There is another MUCH BIGGER AND MORE IMPORTANT issue in what Breyer is saying.

He is rejecting the concept of AFFIRMATIVE POWERS, which is the very foundation of our checks and balances.

This is some evil shit, right here. Our checks and balances are being DESTROYED by idiots like Breyer who don't understand how important they are.

Presidents can not make law, and neither can Supreme Court Justices.

There are TWO acceptable methods for changing our Constitution, and a Supreme Moron isn't one of them.

 

[Libby von H]

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.

Which logically can only mean that if we read it as he reads it we will like or dislike it for his reasons. --- which is why most would say he was mediocre at best. He had not much power of analyis
So for example 3/5 clause reading seems silly, doesn't it.
So when slaves were freed it went from 3/5 to 5/5 !!! More power to the slave states. To say they shouldn't have been counted at all means he has no idea why it was in fact allowed : Which was better to get a better union than to fail because you only accept a perfect union.

I never found the judge to be very insightful

 

[Libby von H]

This clause is one of the most abused. The meaning is clear from the text, but the Left takes it to me that the government can do anything it wants under color of general welfare. I think it was James Madison who made the same point, except he was arguing that the Antifederalists were wrong that this would ever happen because the meaning was clear. Turns out the Antifederalists were right.

Yeah, but in fairness many states like Rhode Island (known as Rogue Island) were printing huge amounts and rendering existing contracts useless. THis is not a Hillary analysis : Peferction vs reality. No matter how you slice the bread somebody is going to be tempted to print money galore. Under Biden it is the worst its been in our history.

 

[Blaster]

Breyer is just another activist judge that views the constitution as a hindrance.

 

[Libby von H]

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.

The USA was founded on avoiding the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. How ignorant of you



What you say is what finally caused the end of slavery and the decline of Stephen Douglas for ,as Lincoln famously said about people like you:

When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong with the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. "

 

[Libby von H]

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.

Which logically must mean that Breyer says how he interprets it is NOT subject to his on criticism !!!

 

[Libby von H]

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.

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.

So he knows what it actually means, knows how it is interpreted.knows that is wrong ,and knows that all WE would not like it.

Let me just say , I never liked the guy , he is just like what he is describing here! Someone who knows the Constitution is wrong,knows what it should say, knows what WE really want.

Stephen Breyer’s Strangest, Least Coherent Supreme Court Questions

Pet oysters? Garage-eating raccoons? Mutant "tomato children"? Stephen Breyer was the master of asking absurd courtroom questions.

slate.com

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

Breyer was one of the liberal activist justices that always sought to emasculate the Constitution. Of course he hates originalism. He wants a "living constitution" that can be reinterpreted according to the liberal thought of the day.

 

[DGS49]

For what it's worth, I see more misunderstanding of two words in the Constitution than everything else combined. They are one example of why the average person can read the Constitution and get the wrong idea. Those who know the Constitution already know that words I'm referring to: "...general welfare..."

Section 8 of Article I states (more or less) that Congress has the power to provide for the "general welfare" of the United States, then it goes on to list seventeen (or so) specific "powers" of Congress.

To the uneducated, it seems that Congress has the power to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the "general welfare" of the country; the rest of the section is just examples.

But this reading of Section 8 has been thoroughly debunked, and in fact even a few minutes of thought reveals that it simply cannot mean what the paragraph above states. If it meant that, how could anything done by Congress be unconstitutional? It would simply not be possible, because anything they do is presumably for the "general welfare" of the country.

Imagine that Congress passed a law that "guarantees the right of every woman in the United States to an abortion, at any time." If the broad reading of the "general welfare" wording were true, this would be entirely appropriate and enforceable. No State could place any restrictions on abortion.

But we know that this is not the case. The Supreme Court has ruled quite unambiguously that because abortion is not mentioned or even alluded to in the Constitution, it is a matter for the States - See the Tenth Amendment.

And recall the first Constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act (aka, "Obamacare"). The Constitutional question was whether Congress had the power to impose a MANDATE that people buy health insurance. If Congress didn't have that power, then at least that section of the law would be struck down.

Why was that even a question? If Congress has the power to do whatever it deems to promote the "general welfare," then OF COURSE it has the power to demand that people get health insurance. But Congress lacks that power, as the court ruled. (However, it has the power to impose taxes, and the "penalty" for not getting insurance was deemed a "tax," which is all that saved the Affordable Care Act).

Anyway, if you bring up the "general welfare" clause you are revealing your ignorance, whether you know it or not.