Federal Judge: Constitution has no value

[blaxshep]

Which ones? The right to marry the person we love? The right to control our own bodies?

Among a long list yes

 

[Frank Apisa]

Well when it's the founding document of the country and the source from which all law is supposed to flow it shouldn't be nothing either.

btw stop with the emotional exaggeration, not all of the founders were slave owners, and they included a process to amend the constitution, which has been used to, among other things, end slavery. which is a point, if the constitution is flawed it can be changed, and I wish the congress would go through that process instead of invent bogus legal theories to push the limits.

Right...not all were. But about twice as many owned slaves as didn't!

Here are some prominent "founding fathers":

These guys never owned slaves:

John Adams Massachusetts
Samuel Adams Massachusetts
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut
Alexander Hamilton New York
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts
Thomas Paine Pennsylvania
Roger Sherman Connecticut



These guys DID:

Charles Carroll Maryland
Samuel Chase Maryland
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania
Button Gwinnett Georgia
John Hancock Massachusetts
Patrick Henry Virginia
John Jay New York
Thomas Jefferson Virginia
Richard Henry Lee Virginia
James Madison Virginia
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania
Edward Rutledge South Carolina
George Washington Virginia

 

[clownboy]

Which ones? The right to marry the person we love? The right to control our own bodies?

Neither of which are included in the constitution.

 

[Deuce]

Neither of which are included in the constitution.

Neither is owning ammunition. So you'd have no objection to ammunition bans, eh?

 

[CanadaJohn]

You have to love how there are people who think 200-year-dead slave owners should have their opinion treated as sacred.

Yes, a 21st century self-centered liberal elitist is far more trustworthy and deserving of respect than the men who fought to create and build your country on principles of freedom and personal responsibility.

 

[Slyfox696]

I did and that's exactly his position, and he's wrong. His position is in direct opposition to his oath of office and his duties as a federal judge..

No, no it's not. Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it. What he said was a tangent related to his discussion about law school and their professors. He was talking about how so many law professors have never practiced and, as an aside, he mentioned he didn't think judges should spend decades researching the history behind the Constitution (basically speaking of strict originalism) because trying to use the logic of men who are, by today's standards, quite ignorant is absurd. He said he thought David Strauss was right, in that the Supreme Court, when deciding cases today, should use common day concerns to address cases, not what someone in the 18th century would have thought. In other words, courts should leverage modern day knowledge to decide cases and not make decisions based on the more limited knowledge of 200+ years ago.

He did not say what you seem to think he said. Please read it closer.

The concept of a "Living Constitution" is an attempt to convince people that they need not amend the Constitution, that's hard. Far easier to bull**** about a "living" constitution and do what you want. It's a morally and intellectually dishonest POV.

I'm not going to debate the merits of a living constitution, but I feel you are incorrect in your assessment. A living constitution is not about changing the Constitution, but rather applying it under modern situations. There's a big difference.

 

[Zyphlin]

He's right in the notion that much can change over multiple centuries and what was applicable and useful in the 18th century may not be in the 21st century.

Where he is wrong in his seeming support or advocacy that the method in which to implement such changes is simply to interpret the document as a "living" constitution, which willfully ignores that a specific means of altering the constitution was written into it. If the intent at any point as for the constitution to be changed via "living" interpretation by Justices, there would have been no need to clearly and unquestionably lay out a codified method to engage in such changes.

"Living Constitution" arguments are simply a high brow means of saying "amending the constitution is too difficult, so we can just ignore it or completely change it's meaning when it's convenient". If you wish to apply "modern" thoughts to alter the clearly defined and established meanings of the constitution, there's a method to do it...judicial fiat is not it.

 

[polgara]

What do you think this poster would do if he was jailed for posting this

"Finally someone recognizing that than 17th century document made by a bunch of slave-owning creationists shouldn't be held up as sacred. Too bad he will now be tarred and feathered."

Do you think he would call the ACLU and have them file a case on his behalf based on the 1st amendment?

Greetings, Mason66. :2wave:

I could only hope that the very same day another person who shouted "Fire" in a crowded theatre was also on trial, and see how the judge handled it! The sad thing is that we don't know how many people might actually silently agree with the poster! North Korea would be so pleased to see how they are being copied! :thumbdown:

 

[cpwill]

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It | Mediaite

Finally someone recognizing that than 17th century document made by a bunch of slave-owning creationists shouldn't be held up as sacred. Too bad he will now be tarred and feathered.

Sounds like someone in the legislature needs to google up "Judicial Impeachment Procedures".

 

[BitterPill]

Liberals are an enigma, they want equality for all by the fascist force of an all powerful Nanny State. Freedoms and rights mean nothing to them. What is the allure?

You seem particularly delusional today.

 

[Renae]

No, no it's not. Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it. What he said was a tangent related to his discussion about law school and their professors. He was talking about how so many law professors have never practiced and, as an aside, he mentioned he didn't think judges should spend decades researching the history behind the Constitution (basically speaking of strict originalism) because trying to use the logic of men who are, by today's standards, quite ignorant is absurd. He said he thought David Strauss was right, in that the Supreme Court, when deciding cases today, should use common day concerns to address cases, not what someone in the 18th century would have thought. In other words, courts should leverage modern day knowledge to decide cases and not make decisions based on the more limited knowledge of 200+ years ago.

He did not say what you seem to think he said. Please read it closer.
I'm not going to debate the merits of a living constitution, but I feel you are incorrect in your assessment. A living constitution is not about changing the Constitution, but rather applying it under modern situations. There's a big difference.

No, it's not. You cannot have a meaningful document that governs the laws, if the laws meaning can be changed by judicial whim.

 

[matchlight]

Richard Posner did not say anything about getting rid of the Constitution. He was making a "living Constitution" argument.

What's the difference? If the Constitution means whatever federal judges say it means, without regard to what the people who wrote and ratified various parts of it meant by them at the time--what was agreed to--it is no longer a constitution at all. It is then just a set of suggestions to be observed or ignored at will.

What he seems to be saying (in my opinion) is more in support of living Constitution.

I've studied arguments for viewing the Constitution as a "living" document before. That very idea implies that what any part of the Constitution was generally understood to mean at the time it was ratified means little or nothing today. But the legitimacy of any part of the Constitution depends largely on the fact it was widely agreed to by the people. The "living Constitution" argument is really just an argument for arbitrary, judge-made law that is not grounded in any broad popular agreement, dressed up to make it look eminently rational and modern.

It is also an argument for ignoring the amendment processes that were carefully set out in Article V. Statists view the fact the Constitution purposely makes amendments possible only when there is very strong national consensus in favor of them as an obstacle to the strongly centralized government control they favor. That's why they would like to short-circuit the process by having judges make de facto constitutional amendments. Much more streamlined and modern.

The idea that the Constitution is a "living" document also relies of the false assumption that the inherent nature of people has changed significantly in a few centuries, and that therefore the best ways and means for them to govern themselves in a civil society have also changed. But the Framers of the Constitution, knowing better, did not hesitate to draw on all sorts of historical experiences with various kinds of government and on the ideas of political philosophers from ancient times on. We are the same animal we were even several thousand years ago, with all the same impulses and frailties. Most rules for how best to govern ourselves are as useful now as they were when people first proposed them.

 

[CanadaJohn]

So you answer a question which was not directed to you and still can't even be bothered to explain an answer which was never asked of you?

Why the hell did you even bother replying then? Were you embarrassed by me pointing out the fact you didn't sound like you knew what Posner actually said? Because I cannot think of any other reason why you would answer a question not asked of you by saying you can't be bothered to answer it (which, by the way, is really kind of dumb).
He didn't say that at all. Please read what he actually said, in context. Thanks.

My apologies if I misconstrued your convoluted response to a dozen posters in one post. If your response to my post wasn't "why?" then your response was "I don't believe you the original source either" which is simply gibberish and unless you can direct me to a gibberish to English translation source, I'm at a loss to decipher what the hell you may have been trying to say.

 

[VanceMack]

How did he do that? Did you actually read what he wrote and in the context in which he wrote it?
You obviously didn't the original source.
Why?
I don't believe you the original source either.
What he said didn't violate this oath. You should read the original statement, so you have the context.

He would and Richard Posner would support him. I don't think he said what you think he said.
No he isn't. He very clearly said what he thought.


For everyone to whom I wrote should read the original source, I'll just make it easy for you. Richard Posner did not say anything about getting rid of the Constitution. He was making a "living Constitution" argument. Not suprisingly, the article linked in the OP "conveniently" cuts Posner's quote right before he said this, "Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14[SUP]th[/SUP]), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18[SUP]th[/SUP]-century guys were worrying about."

And, for his part, David Strauss said,



In other words, those of you calling him an idiot for thinking he said the Constitution has no value or that he is violating his oath or whatever probably need to do more research next time. What he seems to be saying (in my opinion) is more in support of living Constitution.

He doesnt need to interpret the 1st amendment of yesterday vs today. Obviously, the 1st amendment was not written to preserve the rights of people standing on soapboxes. It was meant to preserve the right to free speech from a tyrannical and oppressive government. The 2nd amendment was not written to preserve the right to 18th century muskets, it was written to ensure the citizens of this country had a last line of defense against tyranny. Etc.

The Constitution is absolutely relevant today as then. Intent was and remains...everything.

 

[Anthony60]

If you can't figure that one out on your own, nothing I could say would help you.

And you just have to love those who believe in "a living constitution" - liberal code for "we can interpret the law however we damn please".

I wonder what the lefties would think if they hired an electrician that told them wiring codes were written years ago, so he doesn't ven look at them, he decides what's best.

 

[blaxshep]

You seem particularly delusional today.

Denial

 

[blaxshep]

A living constitution is not about changing the Constitution, but rather applying it under modern situations. There's a big difference.

The amendment process is what makes it living, jurisprudence kills it.

 

[polgara]

He doesnt need to interpret the 1st amendment of yesterday vs today. Obviously, the 1st amendment was not written to preserve the rights of people standing on soapboxes. It was meant to preserve the right to free speech from a tyrannical and oppressive government. The 2nd amendment was not written to preserve the right to 18th century muskets, it was written to ensure the citizens of this country had a last line of defense against tyranny. Etc.

The Constitution is absolutely relevant today as then. Intent was and remains...everything.

Greetings, VanceMack. :2wave:

Very well said, and you speak for a lot of people! :thumbs:

 

[clownboy]

Neither is owning ammunition. So you'd have no objection to ammunition bans, eh?

The second covers that.

 

[VanceMack]

Neither is owning ammunition. So you'd have no objection to ammunition bans, eh?

What in your opinion was the intent of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[CanadaJohn]

I wonder what the lefties would think if they hired an electrician that told them wiring codes were written years ago, so he doesn't ven look at them, he decides what's best.

Wow - that's some analogy.

I'm not following, but then this thread has gone all over the place.

 

[blaxshep]

What in your opinion was the intent of the 2nd Amendment?

At the time there was no army so the only way a resistance militia could be raised effectively is if the people's right to keep and bare arms was protected.

 

[VanceMack]

At the time there was no army so the only way a resistance militia could be raised effectively is if the people's right to keep and bare arms was protected.

Indeed. And to prepare and train which would include not only arms but ammo. I'm just wondering if Deuce has the integrity to admit it.

 

[Slyfox696]

No, it's not. You cannot have a meaningful document that governs the laws, if the laws meaning can be changed by judicial whim.

Sure you can. We do it all the time. :shrug:

Take this forum, as an example. There are rules against flaming and baiting, but those rules are completely decided by the collective whim of the current Staff. For example, if I said "you are stupid", that would be a flame and I would be hit with an infraction. If I said "conservatives/liberals are stupid", then it won't be an infraction, even if you are one of them. And this forum is still governed by the rules set forth by Staff. and continues to plug right along. But they could change the rules tomorrow and make "conservatives/liberals are stupid" an Infraction offense...and the forum would keep chugging along.

It works similarly in government. Take Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. As education and attitudes of the country changed, and as evidenced continued to come in, it became apparent to the Court that separate but equal was not equal.

You most certainly can have a meaningful document and apply modern thinking to it. The idea we have to abide by the thinking of those 200 years ago, even if we can PROVE their thinking was erroneous or biased, is silly. And apparently even Thomas Jefferson thought so.

What's the difference?

One applies the Constitution and the other disposes of it.

There's a big difference.

it is no longer a constitution at all.

Sure it is. :shrug:

It is then just a set of suggestions to be observed or ignored at will.

False. You cannot ignore the Constitution, your judgments still have to align with it. You couldn't just ignore it at will.

The idea that the Constitution is a "living" document also relies of the false assumption that the inherent nature of people has changed significantly

Not the nature of people, but rather what we know of the world around us. As is pointed out numerous times, the Founders didn't write the Constitution with the knowledge of cars, the Internet, airplanes, nuclear weapons, frozen pizza, etc. But they KNEW they didn't know what would happen in the future and so they wrote a framework. A framework is not strict, but rather adaptable.

Let's put it this way...do you really believe that the federal government should have the right to censor any website which is critical of the government? Because the "Internet" is written nowhere in the Constitution.

My apologies if I misconstrued your convoluted response to a dozen posters in one post.

There was nothing convoluted about it, I clearly responded to each section individually. I accept your apology for your sloppy reading.

then your response was "I don't believe you the original source either" which is simply gibberish and unless you can direct me to a gibberish to English translation source, I'm at a loss to decipher what the hell you may have been trying to say.

I see your ability to read with context is also lacking today. Perhaps if you had bothered to pay more attention to the post to which you replied, you could have understood the very clear point I was making, since it was prevalent throughout my post. Again, I accept your apology for your sloppy reading. And, because I'm kind, I'll add in the ONE word you obviously had trouble interpreting:

"I don't believe you READ the original source either"

It wasn't gibberish, it was the hurried omission of one word, a word which anyone with a touch of honesty and attention to detail would have obviously deduced. I apologize for assuming all people in this thread would meet that criteria.

He doesnt need to interpret the 1st amendment of yesterday vs today. Obviously, the 1st amendment was not written to preserve the rights of people standing on soapboxes. It was meant to preserve the right to free speech from a tyrannical and oppressive government.

But the 1st Amendment didn't say that Congress couldn't pass a law censoring websites on the Internet. Absent the ability to apply modern concepts to the 1st Amendment, the argument could easily be made the Internet should be nothing more than another form of government propaganda.

Is this what you believe should happen to the Internet? Or, on the reverse side, do you believe the government shouldn't be able to pass a law which allows for the police to arrest someone who posts on Facebook they are going to shoot up the local elementary school within the next week?

The Constitution is absolutely relevant today as then.

No one is saying otherwise.

The amendment process is what makes it living

No, the amendment process changes, adds or removes parts of the framework. How the framework is applied has nothing to do with amendments.

 

[American]

The Oaths of Office | Two Thirds of Us

Was this asshole asleep when he took his oath?

He ought to be impeached and dropped off in Somalia.