For those who INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION literally?

[RyanH]

Re: Re: For those who INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION literally?

The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be interpreted literally, otherwise, what the hell is the point of amending the Constitution if you can deter from its meaning whenever it is convenient for you?

Because you cannot always count on Congress to pass modern legislation. Would you trust a Republican Congress to protect a woman's right to choose. Of course not. A Court's wisdom is often needed to protect those the Legislature refuses to protect.

Gun regulations are wrong and are in violation of the Second Amendment. A woman's right to murder her child is not guaranteed by the Constitution and is thus a non-issue here. Sorry.

Well, you offer Justice Scalia's radical viewpoint here. He, like you, believes that the Constitution should be interpreted literally. However, we see where this philosophy took him when the case of Bush v. Gore came around------he refused to recognize state's rights, rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Sorry. The Constitution is the ENDING point, unless one wishes to CHANGE it based on his "moral philosophy" and social crap. Then an AMENDMENT to the Constitution is the ENDING point. What is the point of having rights and regulations if they can be "interpreted" any whichway?

Again, because Congress cannot always be trusted.

How's this. It is illegal for someone under 21 years of age to consume alcohol. Well, they didn't say if they were Earth years of Pluto years or Planet "X" years, so I'm going to "interpret" it as Mercury years. I guess that makes me about 82 years old. Time to go have a martini!

Good Try! But, your argument holds little water. Drunk driving laws are recent laws and therefore need little revising by a Court to reflect modern circumstance.

And many people look silly trying to apply a two hundred year old document only to support their radical opposition toward gun ownership yet ignoring the fact that SEVERAL of the decisions made by their DEMOCRATIC congressmen and presidents have resulted in BLATANT violation of the Constitution I.E. SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE CLINTONS' UNRELENTING QUEST FOR GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED HEALTCHARE.

Why does Social Security violate the Constitution? The government has the broad power to tax. Additionally, the government can act to protect the "health, safety, and welfare" of society.

 

[RyanH]

RyanH once again proves he does not know what he is talking about.

I am pro-choice, however, Roe vs Wade is Unconstitutional on it's face, because it is intentionally usurping the rights and powers granted to the States by the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to be timeless, and it is as it was writtten. It is in subequent Supreme Court "intrepretations" that have caused the degredation of it's ability to be enforced and understood, not the document itself.

And once again NeedleBoy, you offer a frivolous argument, at best. Roe v. Wade isn't any more unconstitutional than your right to use a dildoright in your home--a privacy right. Both are modern rights that are found nowhere textually in the Constitution.

You're right about some modern interpretations of the Constitution being unconstitutional....See the Case of Bush v. Gore, for proof, where the Court rejected state sovereignty.

 

[RyanH]

BigPhysics, as always, you are offpoint.

These changes in voter laws would impede a constitutional right to vote----that is a basic right, and the Republican legislature is not really sincere in passing the new voter laws---their reason for enacting the law is so that thousands of more voters may become disenfranchised.

A Court when interpreting the Constitution in light of modern circumstance, should also look to the legislature's motive when examining its laws.

Hope you and Warik are having fun laying down in the trenches.

 

[needleboy]

There is not right to privacy in the Constitution. It however does guarentee the right to be secure in your person and you papers. The right to privacy is another "interpretation" you love so much. The constitution does not address abortion, therefore it is a state issue. To read into the Constitution that which you wish was there is exremely dangerous!!

Every time the federal government passses a law, or takes power away from the state your libert is put at greater risk.

And the Gore vs Bush was actually disallowing the state to superceed federal law over an election.

PS- even so no matter how they count they haven't been able to make Gore come out ahead.

 

[RyanH]

There is not right to privacy in the Constitution. It however does guarentee the right to be secure in your person and you papers. The right to privacy is another "interpretation" you love so much. The constitution does not address abortion, therefore it is a state issue. To read into the Constitution that which you wish was there is exremely dangerous!!

Every time the federal government passses a law, or takes power away from the state your libert is put at greater risk.

And the Gore vs Bush was actually disallowing the state to superceed federal law over an election.

PS- even so no matter how they count they haven't been able to make Gore come out ahead.

The right to choose is encompassed under the right to privacy, a long-time adopted right. And you are certainly right-----the right of privacy is NEVER mentioned in the Constitution, but I bet you'll recognize it. Why?

Because this court-recognized privacy right encompasses your right to jerk-off, watch porn, and be let alone.

Bush v. Gore was the hijacking of an election. This was a states right issue. Typically matters of elections have been left to the states to handle. The Florida Supreme Court was usurped by a partisan Supreme Court intent on electing Governor Bush.

 

[nycdefender]

The constition is very specific in it's wording. Court decisions "intrepreting" the Constitution do no such thing. What the Judicial branch has been doing is writing law de facto(basically government by decree) by it's rulings.

You go on to say that you are pro-choice but feel that Roe v. Wade is unconstiutional. You then turn to the Reservation Clause of the Constitution.

Isn't the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause vaguely worded (not "specific in it's wording')? The 14th Amendment reads in pertinent part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens fo the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The founders had the foresight to allow the Constitution to be amended. Thus after the Civil War, along comes the 14th Amendment. Where is the precedent by which the Supreme Court was to interpret the meaning of the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses? Such vague terms cannot be by definition literally enforced.

I agree that J. Blackmun would have made a better reasoned decision had he not hung his hat on the right of privacy. Some scholars suggest (and I would concur), that the ruling would have been better conceptualized as a case of gender discrimination, which was indeed barred by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

RyanH--J. Scalia, I would argue, is more an original intent interpretivist, than a literalist.

Just my $.02.

 

[RyanH]

RyanH--J. Scalia, I would argue, is more an original intent interpretivist, than a literalist.

Technically Justice Scalia is really both. He's an originalist b/c he looks to the intent of the founders, but he's also a literalist b/c rarely does he ever recognize any rights unless they are specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[needleboy]

Incrementalism at it's finest. It is writing laws, and the Judicail Branch is specifically denied that power!!

Abortion is not about privacy, it's about the precedent it sets. If you can say a woman cannot have an abortion, it's not far from beaing able to say that a woman MUST have an abortion.

 

[litig8r]

Too Much Time on Your Hands

nycdefender & ryan:
You two have way too much time on your hands. I going to find me some underpriviliged, uneducated, economically deprived individual, suborn a lil perjury, charge him with some bullshit social crime, and ship his ass to prison. Damn that feels good

hasta

litig8r

 

[chesty]

Well, the Constitution should not be interpreted. It is a literal document that is the basis and cornerstone of the United States.

RyanH courts do not give out warrants unless you can prove that you have pc and reasonable belief that what you are looking for is there. If the warrant is found to be out of order, or not constitutional the judge and cops can go to jail for purposelly lying to get the warrant.

When we get a warrant or do any cop work we adhere to the strict writing of the Constitution specifically, the 4th, 5th amendments.

The second is to be taken literally as meaning the people not a national guard of some sort. In fact the NG was not formed until the 20th century.

And why would the meaning of the phrase right of the people in the first amendment which clearly means the people be any different from the same phrase in the second amendment.

In fact, RyanH you should read the writings of the founding fathers such as Jeffereson and others about their views on firearms, tyranny etc. It would really enlighten you as to why they crafted the Constitution the way they did.

Also, your continued terming of the bush gore court battles and how it was stolen, usurped, by-passed etc is really getting old. Fat boy gore lost plain and simple.

One more thing. I can't believe you even suggest that Ginsburg is even worth her weight in skin. she may be smart but when it comes to her position she did not deserve it, and from listening to her questions and dissentions during the bush gore deal she sounded as pathetic as you make bush out to be when it came to speaking. In fact, she had a hard time asking questions as though she didn't comprehend the Constitution.