You did read the bit where I said the original was tongue in cheek.Originally Posted by hobbes
You did read the bit where I said the original was tongue in cheek.Originally Posted by hobbes
I tried.Originally Posted by j2k4
I really did, pal.
I can't see how to conduct a "reasonable discourse" about such an unreasonable premise (although major props due to 3R1AN1AC and hobbes for beautifully written attempts...).
Where to begin?Originally Posted by Walter E. Williams
Every sentence in this excerpt is either inflammatory ("contempt for our Constitution"?Disagreeing with Williams=contempt, apparently), patronizing ("Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution." Thanks, but I can decide what a "living document" is all by myself) or illogical (" For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed." What happens when the situation for the which the rules were originally designed
has radically altered or disappeared altogether? What "meaning" do the rules have then?).
If the makeup of the deck of cards Mr. Williams and I are playing with changes, then yes, my flush might lose to two pair.
I don't think that our "standards" have changed all that much, but the world to which we must apply them certainly has.
Mr. Williams premise would dictate that we "preserve" the Constitution beyond the point of relevance.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
Seems to me that the judiciary are doing exactly what they are paid for.
If a legal document is unclear (and your Constitution, for all it's importance, is no more than that) someone has to make an interpretation, and the Judges are the ones appointed to do just that.
There are then 2 possible outcomes.
Either the judges have got it right (or near enough) in which case those who disagree can STFU. This seems to be the case here, but the author doesn't under the STFU clause.
Or they have got it wrong. If they are wrong, the parties involved (in this case your government) have to add a codicil to the original document (an amendment to your Constitution) to make sure that the desired interpretation is achieved.
The trouble with the latter is that it is then back in the hands of the politicians, and the risk is that the interpretation proposed by the ruling party is even less likely to achieve agreement than that put forward by the Judges.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
So you feel you should pay no never mind to international opinion.
The rest of the world (for which I speak) is singularly unshocked by this position.
Last edited by JPaul; 04-13-2005 at 07:46 PM.
I suspect at some point someone (so it may as well be me) will ask what part of the constitution allows for America to be "activist" in the "constitution" of other lands, especially by force.Originally Posted by j2k4
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
the U.S. Constitution has no prohibition against judges being familiar with international opinion or allowing it to influence their way of thinking, either.Originally Posted by j2k4
going to the Constitution as a way to back up one's distaste for foreign opinion just doesn't work 'cause it makes no mention at all, good or bad, of foreign opinion. the U.S. Constitution itself was the PRODUCT of foreign opinion, and didn't just spring fully formed from the American imagination. the authors of the Constitution were well-versed in foreign ideas, opinions and laws, and were influenced by them... in contrast to our current president's attitude.
Last edited by 3RA1N1AC; 04-14-2005 at 01:34 AM.
Not all countries have a written constitution.Originally Posted by j2k4
Any action you (or anyone else) takes which changes the fundamental regimes / freedoms / rights of another country, or it's citizens is in effect changing their constitution.
I am not saying that is a bad thing, you can change things for the better (in your view, or the view of some of the citizens of the other country), however you are changing things.
We've been doing it for years, feck we even made them subject to our laws.
J2
Notice the "" around constitution. Jpaul beat me to the reply. We go in an "fiddle" or completely change other nations. I only raised the point because of the "international opinion" should have no consideration part. But and I am not going to go off thread much, you mentioned Iraq. It was sold incorrectly as Iraq being a threat because of WMD...now it is "to bring democracy"...well we have no constitutional decree to do this in any land other than ours.
The authors point about international opinion was made as if the ruling was solely based on that, (a convenient cherry pick).... but it wasn't. The case was about what classes punishment as cruel or unusual so to look at other nations as an aid in deciding the level is quite acceptable.
But on subject of "activist judges" my very first post says it all really.
Recent event especially have highlighted an incredible hypocrisy from some prominent right wing public figures...the right wing "elite".
Those that wish to use the constitution as an article of convenience seem to be the ones that object the loudest when it comes to freedom, equality and protections for anyone who's lifestyle they disapprove of..... This is why we need unaccountable judges, so they can rule on issues correctly even if those issues are unpopular without fear of losing their jobs.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Walter is a rascal is he not?
If the law was so watertight that ducks would give their approval, then a society would become hidebound and incapable of reacting to change within a generation.
The Constitution surely delinates certain freedoms and rights. However, from the moment its ink was drying it was breached by the continuation of slavery. Interpretation began from the first second.
The purpose of Judges is to make a decision - that is the power invested in them. However, to say they are Activist suggests that they are seeking to impose something unwanted. I would suggest Judges are Re-activists. Lawyers and individuals bring cases to the courts, not Judges. The Judges interpret the law based on the case in front of them and the merit of the legal arguments or (as is often the case) the demerits of the procedures of the police and the prosecuting office if it is a criminal case.
There does seem to be a perception that some Judges (all Judges?) are unduly whacky and liberal and will award the case to the nearest black lesbian whale, regardless of whether they in fact even brought the case before him. This would seem to be a tad alarmist. Most Judges are white, elerdly, upper middle class males with a strong conservative (small c) streak. They do, to a small degree, take predominate external value systems into account but take to a much larger degree legal precedent.
As I undertand it, the Supreme Court rules if any decision taken by a minor court has breached the freedoms enshrined by the Constitution. This is, I suspect, easier said than done and may give rise to the charge of activism whereas the situation is actually more one of a consevative dislike of upsetting legal applecarts that have already been neatly stacked by another court.
Last edited by Biggles; 04-14-2005 at 06:18 PM.
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum
Nicely said Les, tho' if one were to be ubber picky delineates may have been a better choice of words.
The other thing to bear in mind is that, as I understand it the constitution relates to everyone (including said slaves you refer to, good point btw). So in making decisions the Judges must ensure that in preserving one person (or groups) constitutional rights they are not denying the same rights to another.
I also agree with your point re who are likely to be Judges. However, for no particular reason I imagine that those in the USA are made up of a group a bit more widespread than our own. Our own being more likely to offend the liberal (small l ) element than to support them.
Bookmarks