What's so wrong with a "Living" Constitution........

[Aussie_expat]

Why do people bitch and complain when highly qualified Supreme Court Justices interpret a 200+ year old Constitution as it relates to modern day issues. Things change... get over it...

Why do the conservatives think it is so bad when the Justices cite foreign law when making legal decisions. Can't we all learn from each other.

Is this something that the current asshole administration has started or has it always been this backwards here?

[firefox]

1. Fascist living Constitution= dead Constitution n/t

[Aussie_expat]

2. Please explain.... n/t

.

[phish420]

15. in other words

a 'living constitution' under fascist theocratic rule is not a valid constitution in a freedom loving country. Besides, things may change, but our Bill of Rights do not. This is an attempt to allow the constitution to grow and change with the times. This is an ongoing assult on our Constitutional Rights that we have passedon from generation to generation for over 200 years. Unalienable rights that the USSC or any part of government has no right to touch.

[Aussie_expat]

19. Ok then...

How about the death penalty for minors.

Cruel and unusual has been modified...
Correctly so I might add.

The decision was also weighed against international law.

[meow2u3]

30. Fascist living Constitution = dead AMERICANS

Fascists like their Constitution the same way they like their fellow Americans: dead!

[Redstone]

3. "Highly qualified Supreme Court Justices?"

You're not from another country, you're from another planet if you believe in that phrase.

Sorry to sound insulting, but you've obviously got a lot to learn.

Redstone

[Aussie_expat]

8. What's wrong with the Justices...

Tell me of one wrong decision they have made in the past 5 years other than the 2000 election?

[Redstone]

9. No. I'm not taking that bait.

Redstone

[Aussie_expat]

11. That is a broad brush

I don't blame you....

[C_U_L8R]

13. What the heck.... I'll take the bait

How about the Eminent Domain decision this week?

That ruling demonstrates EXACTLY what a right wing conservative
judiciary is all about.... corporate rights over your rights. Period.
Like your home?? Sorry.. there's no guarantee you can keep
it anymore (and if some reich-wing politico wants to hand you
land over to (bigtime campaign contributor) Wal-mart... tough shit).
That's the New World Order for ya.

Now what amazes me is the Fweepers actually support this
pro-corporate political agenda of Bush et al. and their plans
to stack the judiciary with pro-corporate operatives.
I always thought the Fweeps were supposed to be tough individualists...
y'know .. like "Free Republicans". But it seems they've totally
bought into this regime that is eroding their rights away one by one.
Hook LIne and Sinker. It's Mystifying. It's quite ironic actually.
And a bit amusing. But most of all, it's disappointing...
for all their passion... the fweeps just seem to be outright idiots.

[Aussie_expat]

14. Yes, I see that side of the coin......

But what if they want to take property from "Walmart" for public use.

And besides won't the decision in Conn. provide the community with heaps more tax revenue?

[phish420]

16. Some of us

are more concerned with being able to keep the house and property we legally paid for - not tax revenue and what they do with wally worlds.

[C_U_L8R]

20. The new part of the ruling is....

they can take away your property and give it to a private business.
(BIG disclaimer... I'm no legal scholar, just a fellow news reader).
There have always been rules for eminent domain where private
property could be "acquired" for PUBLIC uses... like schools,
highways, etc... And generally... there would be quite a bit
open debate as these plans were developed and ideally
public need and benefit of public use kept things somewhat fair.

The new sinister side to this recent ruling is that it seems
some politician can take your home and land just cause he's
golf buddies with the manager of new IKEA that coming to town.
In other words, Eminent Domainis no longer just for public works
but is a tool for quid-pro-quo political favors.

[Aussie_expat]

27. If it's good for the community....

then why not.

If it generates more revenue for the city then I'm sure it can't be all bad.

Think of the community centers, public transport, libraries, parks and social programs that will be established.

[TnDem]

22. Who??

Have you lost your mind?

That was the liberal wing of the court that gave us the eminent domain decision...Check the record...All of the conservative members voted together and all of the liberals voted together..The moderates split.

[The Straight Story]

4. The constitution can be changed, there are rules to do so

I don't think the rules say it can be changed by some judges' interpretation though.

[Aussie_expat]

6. The rules say exactly .......

The rules say exactly that it can be changed by "some judges" interpretation.......
And thats a good thing in a evolving world.

[Yupster]

28. It's a tough one

On one hand, the poster you respond to is correct that the Constitution sets out two ways of changing itself, through the amendment process and through the Constitutional Convention process.

I think these processes should be used for all major changes.

However, there are always going to be questions of interpretation which the justices are going to have to make decisions upon.

Thus by making these determinations and interpretations, the Constitution will be changed through judicial interpretation.

This is of course necessary, but I think justices should be shy and careful of making major changes without the due process the Constitution provides.

The tough call is when does the court go past this made up line of going too far astray in making new law rather than interpreting existing law? I think every good justice probably wrestles with this problem.

For most of us constituents though, it's a rather easy call. It depends upon whose ox is being gored.

If we agree with their decision, then they didn't go too far. If we don't agree with it, then the court went too far.

Just to give one example, I am on the pro-choice side on abortion, but think the state has the right to put restrictions on the right I guess I'm somewhere near the middle on the issue since I think most people are certainly pro-choice to one degree or another.

However, I still think the Roe v Wade decision was a real abuse of its power by the Supreme Court.

The Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment right after the Civil War to make "freedmen" citizens of the state in which they resided. The amendment also guarantees that the Confederate debt cannot be paid, and also stops many Confederate leaders from ever holding any government positions within the USA.

Fair enough. Agree or disagree, but the intent of the two houses of Congress and the 3/4ths of the state legislatures were pretty clear as to what they were trying to do when they passed the amendment.

Now for a court 100 years later to come in and say that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to a woman to have an abortion, well to me that's just an abuse of the the court's power. The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to do no such thing - nothing even close.

Many people will disagree with me because they like where the court landed, and don't care how it got there, but that's wrong thinking in my opinion.

If you want a law making abortion legal, then your state legislature or the US congress should pass it. That's where laws are meant to be passed, not in a court.

Anyway, in my opinion, the Constitution must be alive and open to interpretation, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and all judges should be constantly careful that they don't cross it.

[SnoopDog]

5. 'get over it'....sounds familiar

[Aussie_expat]

7. Well said Snoopy Dog... n/t

.

[SnoopDog]

10. For the record, you obviously misunderstood my post....

[Aussie_expat]

12. Still don't get it then ....

Can the parametres of the constitution not change and adapt with modern life?

[phish420]

18. Not our Bill of Rights...

IMHO

[phish420]

17. no doubt...n/t

[Mythsaje]

21. The real problem

Is the motivations of those doing the interpretations. We should be VERY fussy about the changes we accept. The Bill of Rights--protections for speech, the press, religion, self-defense, and privacy, should not be overridden on anyone's whim.

The original intent of the document was to severely limit the scope and power of the federal government, which was why its operations were strictly defined. The Bill of Rights were an afterthought, not because the Founding Fathers didn't think it was important, but because many thought it would be unnecessary (or even dangerous) to outline protections that were originally built into the system by limiting federal power. They were worried that ONLY the Bill of Rights would be considered in determining the limits of self-determination...that those who looked at it would say "but it doesn't say anything about THIS freedom."

Kinda like the Righties saying now--there's no such thing as a 'right to privacy.'

Uh...wrong answer, Dogbert. It's outlined quite clearly by the 4th Amendment. Deliberately protecting people from illegal search is SPECIFICALLY designed to protect their privacy.

Another example is the 2nd Amendment...hotly contested, though I personally think the Righties are correct on this one. I don't give a damn what interpretation you put on it--the founding fathers didn't want a disarmed populace which would be prey to any tyrant that came along. If someone went back in time and snatched up ol' Thomas Jefferson, we'd be having to lock him in a closet until we got it through his head that we had better ways to overthrow our own homegrown King George than grabbing the nearest musket and storming the White House.

Simply put...a disarmed populace is a malleable populace, and I've always been VERY skeptical of Democratic leaders who push to far on that agenda. My fears have always been of what we're seeing now in this country, but I've long considered it possible that some of the Democrats are collaborators in their evil plot.

The founding fathers weren't omniscient, but they were damned smart...they set it up so the document could, in turn, be modified to include women and minorities as citizens, without jeopardizing the document as a whole. And that took some foresight. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that they expected that to happen eventually.

For their time, the FFs were very progressive. They were radical revolutionaries, willing to embark on an experiment the likes of which the world hadn't seen for thousands of years.

And, unlike some countries, our Constitution has stood the test of time. We've had ONE constitution. Other countries (and I'm not naming names) have had as many as 18.

Rule Number One: Don't screw with a winner.

[CityDem]

23. Just wait a couple years

How would you feel about a living constitution if Bush nominates new SCOTUS judges to replace Rehnquist, O'Connor, Stevens and Ginsberg. Stevens and Ginsberg would only leave for health reasons, but stranger things have happened. That would leave a 7-2 conservative -- very conservative SCOTUS. You could say goodbye to many of the most recent decisions on choice, privacy, etc.

[Aussie_expat]

24. I for one don't think they have the "stones"

To overturn Roe v Wade.

It's too good of a wedge issue.

[mandomom]

25. You're right. It's the Culture of Life

that leads one to let the constitution breathe.

[Independent_Liberal]

26. "Get over it"...We've heard that repeated...

...over and over again.

[Rockholm]

29. We should be Living our Constitution.