• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge: Constitution has no value

VanceMack said:
And he is wrong.
Click to expand...
No, you disagree with him. There's a big difference. But, regardless of whether you agree or not, no one can honestly say he said the Constitution should be done away with, as many were trying to do.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Why do you feel that way?
So instead of responding to what I actually said and the point I made with the supporting evidence, you simply chopped off the context to post some useless rhetoric.

But sure, I'M the reason the trust in the honesty of our country is so low.
Click to expand...

Not you, people with your mentality. That Laws are merely things to be whimsically decided, the Constitution is more like an advisory document with no real baring or legal backing. If a Judge decides the 2nd Amendment really means massive gun control.. hey that's fine. We don't need to amend anything, just... feel differently.
 
fmw said:
That would be 18th century. The constitution is outdated for the left because it limits the power of government and the left wants all the powerful government it can get. For the right the constitution is positive because it limits the power of government. You may guess that I disagree with that judge.
Click to expand...

This goes under the - those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it file.
 
Renae said:
Not you, people with your mentality. That Laws are merely things to be whimsically decided, the Constitution is more like an advisory document with no real baring or legal backing. If a Judge decides the 2nd Amendment really means massive gun control.. hey that's fine. We don't need to amend anything, just... feel differently.
Click to expand...

The constitution very specifically spells out what powers are enumerated to the Fed to the exclusion of all others, which are reserved to the states and the people ..... Naaaaa that was just a suggestive advisory :roll:
 
VanceMack said:
The "living breathing" argument means they want to restrict freedoms and they are really upset at the obstacle the Constitution imposes.
Click to expand...

AGREED. oh, and they want (and have) come up with BS ways to get around that obstacle, too many ways already.
 
blaxshep said:
The constitution very specifically spells out what powers are enumerated to the Fed to the exclusion of all others, which are reserved to the states and the people ..... Naaaaa that was just a suggestive advisory :roll:
Click to expand...

Well according to SlyFox, you just got it all right. Scary eh?
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, you disagree with him. There's a big difference. But, regardless of whether you agree or not, no one can honestly say he said the Constitution should be done away with, as many were trying to do.
Click to expand...

Actually, if he is stating it is outdated and that judges should stop studying it, he is clearly stating that it should be replaced. Otherwise, what is the point of saying what he stated? If I say that a medical practice is outdated and that doctors should stop practicing it, obviously something else would replace it. He is suggesting that modern humans have a better understanding of how America should work. He wants to remove the Constitution because he probably has problems with some of the rights that are given in it. I can guess which ones they are that he would like to remove.
 
Renae said:
Not you, people with your mentality.
Click to expand...
That's silly. You don't want to hear facts, you just want to speak your mind without considering any other position. That's a far worse mentality and far more ruinous than someone thinking that application of a framework should adapt as time goes on.

That Laws are merely things to be whimsically decided
Click to expand...
No one is saying that. Why do you present such a dishonest distortion of the position?

the Constitution is more like an advisory document with no real baring or legal backing.
Click to expand...
It's a framework. I've said that many times. Once more, you choose not to engage in what I am actually saying, but rather useless strawman arguments and rhetoric. And that's why the trust in the institutions and laws has ebbed so low, people like you.
 
jimbo said:
Unfortunately legislating from the bench is becoming all too common.
Click to expand...

Really?
Judges job is to help decide if a law has been broken. Nothing more. Those who openly state they will not honor their sworn oath should be promptly relegated to the trash heap of losers.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Some judges also determine the constitutionality of existing laws.
 
Renae said:
Well according to SlyFox, you just got it all right. Scary eh?
Click to expand...
That's not what I'm saying at all. Why can you simply not just tell the truth?
ajn678 said:
Actually, if he is stating it is outdated and that judges should stop studying it
Click to expand...
He didn't say that. Please read what he actually said.

he is clearly stating that it should be replaced.
Click to expand...
No, he's not.
Otherwise, what is the point of saying what he stated?
Click to expand...
He's not saying the Constitution shouldn't be learned and understood, he's saying judges shouldn't spend decades researching data that has very little real use in today's world. The medical equivalent of what he's saying is that doctors should spend years in med school learning about how doctors hundreds of years ago used leeches to cure disease.

He is suggesting that modern humans have a better understanding of how America should work.
Click to expand...
I do not feel that's what he's saying at all. He's saying today's America is starkly different than the America of the late 1700s. Would you disagree with that?
He wants to remove the Constitution because he probably has problems with some of the rights that are given in it.
Click to expand...
Nothing he said even came close to this.
 
Slyfox696 said:
That's silly. You don't want to hear facts, you just want to speak your mind without considering any other position. That's a far worse mentality and far more ruinous than someone thinking that application of a framework should adapt as time goes on.

No one is saying that. Why do you present such a dishonest distortion of the position?

It's a framework. I've said that many times. Once more, you choose not to engage in what I am actually saying, but rather useless strawman arguments and rhetoric. And that's why the trust in the institutions and laws has ebbed so low, people like you.
Click to expand...

I disagree... it is the law of the land, and it already gives the protocol for changes, that are hard to enact for a reason.
 
Hypothetical said:
I disagree... it is the law of the land, and it already gives the protocol for changes, that are hard to enact for a reason.
Click to expand...

Which is why liberals hate it and why jurisprudence is used to circumvent it.
 
Slyfox696 said:
That's not what I'm saying at all. Why can you simply not just tell the truth?
He didn't say that. Please read what he actually said.

No, he's not.
He's not saying the Constitution shouldn't be learned and understood, he's saying judges shouldn't spend decades researching data that has very little real use in today's world. The medical equivalent of what he's saying is that doctors should spend years in med school learning about how doctors hundreds of years ago used leeches to cure disease.

I do not feel that's what he's saying at all. He's saying today's America is starkly different than the America of the late 1700s. Would you disagree with that?
Nothing he said even came close to this.
Click to expand...

Let's look at what he stated.

“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner argued.

The man says that judges should not waste any time studying the Constitution, its amendments, or its implementation. Meaning that he does not think it is valid any longer. Implementation specifically means that they should no longer care how the Constitution has been applied in the past or how it is continuing to be implemented today.Your example of doctors not learning about leeches is horrible. Doctors learn about methods like that so that we can say, these are not what you should do. You should do this instead. And we teach them what to do in regards to what we currently know about medical practices.

“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century,” he continued. “Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”

He said the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and post-Civil War amendments do not have a place in modern society. If they have no place in modern society, than that means we should not apply them to how our nation is maintained.

“I’m not particularly interested in the 18th Century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don’t believe that any document drafted in the 18th century can guide our behavior today,”

This basically sums it up. He doesn't care at all about the Constitution.
 
There's a big difference.
Click to expand...

I do not agree. For a judge to ignore the original meaning of some part of the Constitution in favor of some other meaning he wants to give it is, in effect, for that judge to dispose of that part of the Constitution.

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

What is to prevent any judge from doing just that, if the original meaning of the Constitution is now irrelevant to its current meaning, as he sees it? You would like to pretend the can original meaning of the Constitution can be cast aside, and yet still kept. What principle would govern a judge's interpretation of this or that part of the Constitution, once he no longer considered the text and original meaning of the document relevant? When you say "align with it," it is just another way of saying you think the text and original meaning still must be considered, but to some lesser degree. And who gets to decide just what the proper degree is? Some group of self-anointed masterminds who would like to amend the Constitution by shortcut?

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.
Click to expand...

It is exactly because the Framers of the Constitution knew very well that conditions would inevitably change that they included several procedures for amending it in Article V. The Court has more than once written about this problem of applying the Constitution to problems involving modern technology. Not too many years ago, Justice Scalia briefly discussed that issue in D.C. v. Heller. Statists want to avoid the difficulties of amending the Constitution, so they call for having judges do it through the back door.
 
SOunds like a loon judge to me . . . im not sure of all his context and if its actually like the link in the OP makes it out to be but in general I dont agree with his statements regarding it having no value. Thats crazy.

having the constitution or at least its foundation got us equal rights for women and minorities. It corrected the states overstepping its powers and protected gay marriage. It will eventually be used to give gays and transgenders equal rights. The equality it eventually brings and with the protection of my right to bear arms I feel great about the constitution,

I do agree that "“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century,” but that just means thats our job to do that part.
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, you disagree with him. There's a big difference. But, regardless of whether you agree or not, no one can honestly say he said the Constitution should be done away with, as many were trying to do.
Click to expand...
No...I agree. He didnt say it should be done away with...just not studied as a standard. To the contrary...the STANDARD preserves all freedoms. Eliminating the standard and...well...you have no standard. Then you are left to the political whims of any given ruling party.
 
blaxshep said:
Thank you Richard Posner for proving liberals hate the Constitution and America.
Click to expand...

So you instantly judge millions of people - even though you personally know a tiny fraction of them - ENTIRELY on the basis of one faceless individual's comment on an online chat forum?

No matter whether you agree with the OP comment or not...your reply is the most ridiculous post I have yet read this week...though it's early days still.


Btw, I am neither rep nor dem...I despise both parties.
 
this is the same charge i levy against theocrat politicians - that they don't even read the constitution, the very thing they vow to uphold

it's a flawed and outdated document, but i certainly don't trust today's politicians to create a better replacement, and without *something* all you're left with is legal anarchy. Can't believe a judge would say this
 
DA60 said:
While I do agree the Constitution is HIGHLY FLAWED...I do think it has some good points to it.

But I am sick of people looking at it as some sacred text...it ain't.
Click to expand...

If you don't like some part of the Constitution, you can work toward amending it. In the meantime, it IS sacred, in that it is the highest law in the United States. I don't know if you live in the U.S., but if you do, your low opinion of that law is telling. I've come to expect people who share your political views also to share your disdain for the Constitution. And I'm sure they would be the ones screeching and wailing the loudest about their rights, if government were ever to violate them.
 
Deuce said:
You have to love how there are people who think 200-year-dead slave owners should have their opinion treated as sacred.
Click to expand...

The aspersion of "slave owners" has absolutely nothing to do with whether their (framers) opinion should have receive considerable weight when understanding a legal text. The U.S. Constitution is, after all, a legal document, written by men, and ratified by the people and/or representatives of the people. The opinion of the framers, while not determinative, is helpful to ascertaining a proper understanding of the meaning of the legal text.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
you know what's funny though, is Judge Posner is actually one of the more originalist judges on the bench. he doesn't like the constitution as he sees it outdated, but he knows his job as it relates to it.

he was the judge who struck down Illinois's ban on average citizens carrying firearms.
Click to expand...

Justice Posner is no Originalist and neither does he profess or seek to be an Origianlist. He has publicly denounced Originalism and Scalia's very dependent and heavy reliance upon Originalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom