A View Bearing on Judicial Activism in the U.S.

[3RA1N1AC]

as it seems the gist of the article is that the U.S. Constitution speaks for itself and doesn't need Supreme Court to explain it... i find it odd that the author appeals to Thomas Jefferson for clarification. DOESN'T it speak for itself? how many times have i read conservatives saying that private & public comments by various founding fathers of the U.S. have no bearing whatsoever on the Constitution's authority over "church & state" issues, etc. is the Constitution so simple and straightforward as to be self-explanatory, or does it require elaboration in order to be understood & applied? the author seems to want it both ways.

a couple of other comments in the article struck me as a little overboard.

Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document.

this is cheap. why can't political columnists resist this kind of stuff? "their opinion differs from mine and therefore means that they have less reverence for (sacred object) than i do." may as well cry infidel or traitor, while one's at it.

the "weight of international opinion" and good ideas should determine court decisions underlies much of the ongoing conflict over President Bush's federal court appointees.

the author must know quite well how long-winded, rambling and prone to irrelevant tangents that judicial opinions often are. judges are supposed to use their judicial opinions to provide legal justifications, precedents, etc for their decisions... but there's not much stopping them from slipping all sorts of philosophical/religious/sociological/etc stuff into it. and so it isn't difficult to find something seemingly left-field in their opinions if you poke around a bit. conservative judges are by no means immune to including inappropriate comments in their judicial opinions, either. the judge's reference to "international opinion" would be one brief tangent in an otherwise lengthy explanation of how the decision fits with u.s. law, not with international opinion. it's fairly misleading for the article's author to imply that "international opinion" would've been used as THE explanation of the decision.

[3RA1N1AC]

I think that you chaps hold this constitution too dear, genuinely sorry if that gives offence.

well, we hold it dear because it's essentially a binding contract which formed the nation, its gov't, delineates the gov't's structure & individuals' rights, sets the course for a few of our central legal principles & doctrines, and continues to hold the nation together because we (the citizens) generally agree that it has the authority to do so.

and it's just nice to have such a clear, well written contract-of-sorts to refer to when disagreements arise. "i say this, you say that, let's see what the original contract has to say about this matter." as you've pointed out, without a constitution or supreme law that all subsequent laws must comply with, it can be more of an ongoing experiment to just throw new ideas at the wall and see which ones stick. but i guess in the U.S. we take a lot of pride & comfort in the semblance of systematic order that we get from our constitution... the idea that our lowest & most trivial laws should logically extend from our highest ones, no matter how distantly related they are.

no offense taken, it's certainly not a sacred document beyond all reproach or question... but it's just dear to us as it represents our collective agreement to form and remain as a nation.

[JPaul]

no offense taken, it's certainly not a sacred document beyond all reproach or question... but it's just dear to us as it represents our collective agreement to form and remain as a nation.

I think you'll find it's their collective agreement, not yours. It was written a wee while ago, in entirely different times. Indeed in an entirely different world

Or do you think that it should stand forever, no matter what else changes in the world.

[sparsely]

I think you'll find it's their collective agreement, not yours. It was written a wee while ago, in entirely different times. Indeed in an entirely different world

Or do you think that it should stand forever, no matter what else changes in the world.

true, though I'm horrified to imagine who might be responsible for drafting any heavy revisions, who (corporations and organizations) might influence those tasked with it, and what sort of convoluted mess they would settle on in the end.

Personally, I'm all for amending the constitution, but only so much as it's done to further define, clarify, or establish the liberties of individuals.

[3RA1N1AC]

I think you'll find it's their collective agreement, not yours. It was written a wee while ago, in entirely different times. Indeed in an entirely different world

the man whose country still has royals and lords said what?

a little more than 200 years isn't THAT long ago, really. relatively.

Or do you think that it should stand forever, no matter what else changes in the world.

but i'm perfectly happy with bananas being curved, no matter what the EU says.

right, it was someone else's decision originally, yet it continues to hold authority because the citizens and their representatives choose to continue investing it with authority. even if mostly through complacency. and as far as i'm aware, there is no prescribed limit on the extent to which it may be amended, so i suppose in theory there's no part of our gov't and laws which cannot be changed (even very radically) through constitutional amendments. it's just, thus far, the citizens apparently haven't seen much need for drastic changes to the basic structure of the gov't or the most basic laws. there've been a few amendments though.

[JPaul]

the man whose country still has royals and lords said what?

a little more than 200 years isn't THAT long ago, really. relatively.



but i'm perfectly happy with bananas being curved, no matter what the EU says.

right, it was someone else's decision originally, yet it continues to hold authority because the citizens and their representatives choose to continue investing it with authority. even if mostly through complacency. and as far as i'm aware, there is no prescribed limit on the extent to which it may be amended, so i suppose in theory there's no part of our gov't and laws which cannot be changed (even very radically) through constitutional amendments. it's just, thus far, the citizens apparently haven't seen much need for drastic changes to the basic structure of the gov't or the most basic laws. there've been a few amendments though.

I have made it perfectly clear, I would scrap the monarchy, make the UK a republic and replace the lords with an elected upper house.

Oh and I know you can amend it, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. Well maybe more than a bit. I thought the "maturity" jibe gave that away.

[hobbes]

I think you'll find it's their collective agreement, not yours. It was written a wee while ago, in entirely different times. Indeed in an entirely different world

Or do you think that it should stand forever, no matter what else changes in the world.

The Bible was written much more than a wee while ago. Should it not be amended at regular intervals to reflect societal progress or are the lessons and philsophies it teaches not just as relevant today as when the stories were crafted.

A philosophy that is centered about freedom of the individual with liberty and justice for all certainly is just a germane today as when penned. I buy into that, it is therefore my constitution just as the Bible is yours.

Certain confusions can occur over time, as with the gun issue, and this is why we have a Supreme Court. They are empowered to interpret the spirit of the constitution over and above the literal words as I described before.

So as an American, you know what rights you have and no "fad regime" is allowed to change that. The feared theocracy of Bush cannot mandate school prayer or place any sort of religious restraint upon the people as it is unconstitutional.

The sad truth is that if an annonymous vote were taken, I bet the majority of the people would support a law that prevents blacks and whites from marrying. We certainly know what the popular vote about gay marriage would be. Do you want the Supreme Court to decide that since it is popular they should give people the law they want?

No, the Constitution says that everyone is entitled to the same personal freedoms and liberties. Justice is for everyone. If you live here you must accept that condition. That means you may not like certain changes, like civil (gay)unions, but you have to recognize that these people have that right. As I have said, it has so far been underimplemented.

But I think I understand the source of your pique about our attitude about the Constitution. Bunch of red-necks waving guns and wearing Constitution labeled sleeveless t-shirts. It is these people which make the outside world think that we genuflect at it's mention and worship at it's shrine, but that is not the reality.

We average folk think that it was crafted under a healthy philosophy and is holding up pretty good so far.

[Busyman]

as it seems the gist of the article is that the U.S. Constitution speaks for itself and doesn't need Supreme Court to explain it... i find it odd that the author appeals to Thomas Jefferson for clarification. DOESN'T it speak for itself? how many times have i read conservatives saying that private & public comments by various founding fathers of the U.S. have no bearing whatsoever on the Constitution's authority over "church & state" issues, etc. is the Constitution so simple and straightforward as to be self-explanatory, or does it require elaboration in order to be understood & applied? the author seems to want it both ways.

a couple of other comments in the article struck me as a little overboard.

this is cheap. why can't political columnists resist this kind of stuff? "their opinion differs from mine and therefore means that they have less reverence for (sacred object) than i do." may as well cry infidel or traitor, while one's at it.


the author must know quite well how long-winded, rambling and prone to irrelevant tangents that judicial opinions often are. judges are supposed to use their judicial opinions to provide legal justifications, precedents, etc for their decisions... but there's not much stopping them from slipping all sorts of philosophical/religious/sociological/etc stuff into it. and so it isn't difficult to find something seemingly left-field in their opinions if you poke around a bit. conservative judges are by no means immune to including inappropriate comments in their judicial opinions, either. the judge's reference to "international opinion" would be one brief tangent in an otherwise lengthy explanation of how the decision fits with u.s. law, not with international opinion. it's fairly misleading for the article's author to imply that "international opinion" would've been used as THE explanation of the decision.

Nicely done sir.

That's was a good read.

[JPaul]

The Bible was written much more than a wee while ago. Should it not be amended at regular intervals to reflect societal progress or are the lessons and philsophies it teaches not just as relevant today as when the stories were crafted.

The words are not amended, however they are interpreted by Priests and (presumably) Ministers and by people who follow Christianity. As a Catholic it is the Gospels that are the most important thing to us and where we get the lessons from Christ's teachings.

We've spoken of this type of thing before. People have their own view of religion, which they impose on others. I do not believe that God sits on a cloud, nor that he has a white beard. I do not believe that every word in the Bible is literally true, there were parables and it was written at a time when lessons were taught in a different way. It is the fundamental teachings of Christ which are important to me.

PS only going off topic to answer the point raised, please continue.

[hobbes]

. It is the fundamental teachings of Christ which are important to me.

That was precisely my point. It is the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution which is important to me. That philosophy needs no more modification over time than the teachings of Christ do.

Just like certain parts of the Bible are up for re-evaluation if a message is not clear, certain wordings in the Constitution are also under scrutiny.