PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #21
You realize that the constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus Christ, right?
Please articulate the point you are attempting to make, so that I can rip it to shreds.
Waiting.
Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection. And that any deviation from it is sinful. This is the same constitution that concluded black people should be 3/5ths of a person in terms of representation (and that representation itself would be averse to the interests of the blacks themselves).
The constitution is, and always has been a living document, subject to interpretation, and amendments. Furthermore, during the time of the Framers it was determined that the SCOTUS would be the body that interprets the constitution, taking into account more than just original intent.
"Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection."
Your post is evidence that you are a moron who has never even read the Constitution.
From post #15...
9. So, even though the Framers allowed that change to the Constitution might be necessary, and, in Article five, explained how amendments could and should be managed....the Progressive court,Roosevelt's court, disdained to follow any of the procedures provided.
Judges have no right nor authority to alter the Constitution.
None.
"living Constitution" is a euphemism for killing the Constitution.
Now...let me guess....you're a government school grad?
I see, you're a Scalia disciple who's probably unaware of Scalia's numerous hypocrisies concerning where he believes original intent should be followed as opposed to where invention of meaning (2nd Amendment's Heller) is appropriate.
Article III articulates the judicial branch's jurisdiction to hear cases, and interpret law. There was virtually no disagreement during the constitutional convention that the judicial branch would have the power of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. You seem to think judicial review should be confined only to those interpretations you like. That's dictatorial fascism, and completely anti-constitutional.
Lol @ all your ad hominum garbage. You're an unhappy little shit, aren't you?
1. In addition to been stupid, your vulgarity gives you away. So....how long have you been a Liberal?
2. Gads, you're a moron....one hardly knows where to begin your education.
Article thee states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."
The Constitution was written in English, you fool....nor does Article three state "and interpret law."
3. The only power the Supreme Court has is to show the specific relationship between any issue before it, and the Constitution.
As Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
"The brief writer’s version [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.
Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
Here....as I am clearly more facile with the English language than you are....let me interpret that for you:
Judges have no right to insert their own views in the law. They are only authorized to decide a case as it is "tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted."
4. Understanding the Constitution is an exercise in the the use of the English language.
If there is any question about the Framer's intention....this is the procedure to be followed:
"As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
Don't force me to have to school you again.
And watch your language.