Are u proud to b a liberal?

[Jeff Young]

Nope, wrong again. The founding fathers were for their time progressive and liberal (in most cases). The ideas of individual liberty and equality and separation of church and state and government by representation and so on were radical for their time.

And have continued to evolve and progress over time, as Jim points out. The modern analog of Thomas Jefferson is Martin Luther King, not the socially conservative George Wallace. And so on.

Eighteenth Century revolutionists are Twenty-First Century Conservatives. We've had our revolution and we are in the defense mode now, J.Y.

 

[Jim Craik]

Bob,

The founding fathers fought the establishment for many reasons, giving the people rights and freedoms near the top. The Consevaties backed the Brits.

They also purposely set up a system and process to amend this Constitution.

This made it possible for liberals to pass amendments that gave woman the right to vote. The conservatives fought against it. Were the Consevatives in defense mode then as well?

This also allowed Liberals to to pass the Civil Rights bill, the Conservatives fought that too.

Bob were the conservatives also in defense mode then?

 

[Bob Fechter]

You guys can play any word games you want, but you know what I mean.

We defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the model for the world to emulate, in its original form, no living documents, no activist judges writing law, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Jeff Young]

It's not word games, it's history.

And that last sentence always gives me a chuckle. I know the Glenn Becks of the world have convinced you that conservatives are the "true defenders of the Constitution" or some nonsense. That's stupid, and offensive.

From day one (i.e. 1787), folks were debating the meaning of the Consitution -- Federalist v. non-federalist, and so on. No one side "owns" the debate. No one side is a "defender of the Constitution." We are all Americans and the beauty of the Constitution is that it created a structure in which this debate has, in my view produced a back and forth that has charted the correct course for the country over time.

So yeah, get the hell off your high horse and come back down to reality. No, you and your ilk are not the only people who believe in and defend the Constitution.

 

[Ron Earp]

The founders believed in democracy, the rule of law, separatin of church and state,
Yeah, baby!

How come "modern conservatives", such as Mr. Rick Santorum and others, do not believe in "serpartin of church and state" (sic)?

For those of us who are fiscally conservative, but not religious, the latest crop of conservative candidates who invariably bring religion to the table alienate a significant fraction of potential supporters.

 

[Jim Craik]

Ron, Jeff +1

 

[Bob Fechter]

Where have you seen a "modern conservative" threaten to merge church and state?

This country was founded by God fearing people who said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." I'll go with that over most anything else offered.

p.s. I knew I should have edited JY's "separatin" spelling when I quoted him.

 

[Jim Craik]

We defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the model for the world to emulate, in its original form, no living documents, no activist judges writing law, etc., etc., etc.

So you want the Constitution in its "Original form", "No living document"?

So Bob, you want to disregard the Founding Fathers, who spent a great deal of time working out fair ways to "amend" the Constitution.

So Bob thinks Consevatives are "defending" the original Document. You know the one were Women do not vote, Blacks are counted as 1/2 person...............

Oh yea, Bob, no First or Second Amendments?

Bob must be the only consevative who wants to do without the 2nd Amendment!

 

[Bob Fechter]

Dear Jim, the Constitution was designed to be amended.

I understand that a lot of people believe that the Constitution is subject to re-interpretation for the sake of their agenda, but you don't change it without deliberate constitutional means, not by an activist judge who writes new law on the bench rather than interpret the actual laws, as he was originally mandated to do.

The rest of your rant is muddled, sorry.

 

[Jim Craik]

Bob,

Give us some examples of what you are "fighting against", you know where an "Activist Judge" changed the "Constitution".

 

[Jim Craik]

We defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the model for the world to emulate, in its original form, no living documents, no activist judges writing law, etc., etc., etc.

Bob, I know that you say you are in "Defence Mode", and that "We defend the Constitution" from "Activist Judges".

So if you are actively defending us from these horrible Judges, you sould be able to give us several recent examples of "Activist Judges" who changed the Constitution.

 

[Bob Fechter]

"writing law" Jim. Judges aren't supposed to write laws, they are supposed to interpret them in relation to the case they are sitting in. That's not constitutional, that's Congress' job.

 

[Jim Craik]

Bob, I understand what you are saying, but I really do not recall this being that much of a problem.

But if as you say, that is what is what you Consevatives do..... "Defend the Constitution" from Activist Judges", you must have some good examples of this.

I would sure help if you give us some examples of these "Activist" Judges changing the Constitution.

 

[Jim Craik]

You know Bob, after all your bold statments, about how you are defending us and all....

If you can't come up with some pritty good examples of "Activist Judges" by passing the Constitution, people will think you do not know what you are talking about!

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Actually, my understanding is that there are at least two kinds of law in this country.

The first is statute law- laws written into the books by common agreement. I think the Constitution falls into this category. And so do all the other ordinances, laws, rule, etc, state and municipal.

The second category is case law. This is where judges hand down decisions and those decisions are recorded, and later referred to for one reason or another, in similar cases.

Why is this important? It is important because the legal system from which ours originally derived- the English one- had NO statute law for most of English history. There was only case law for quite a long time. I believe that the English system now does have statute law, but it is a relatively recent invention.

In case law (and I am not an attorney nor a legal historian, so feel free to verify, disagree, etc) essentially the entire body of the law is precedent. What the new (at the time) American system attempted to do with the Constitution and Bill of Rights was establish a basis for a new structure of law which would have as its foundation fundamental rights for citizens (well, some of them, anyway, and more as the years went on) AND establish the governing and legal structure of the new country in a formal sense.

What you DON'T see in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but what is just as important as anything else, is the fact that the entire system and those two documents were worked out as a series of compromises and that they included the potential to be amended in the future. While the founding fathers could not have predicted the internet etc, they could and did understand that technology and social change were essential factors of the human condition, and arguably they tried to provide flexibility for them.

So every time a judge issues a decision, that decision and the process whereby the judge came to it become part of the body of case law. To say that judges legislate from the bench misunderstands the way law works- since all decisions become part of case law and are subject to citation and interpretation in subsequent cases, the very fact and action of judicial decision-making (and making decisions and deciding cases are what judges DO) means that judges are constantly establishing precedents- in effect legislating from the bench. They don't intend to do that most of the time- they would say, and fairly so, that they are trying to interpret both case and statute law with respect to the matter at hand- but the effect is frequently there whether or not they want it.

There is no doubt that there are judges on all parts of the political spectrum who consciously attempt to influence public policy by their decisions. However, for conservatives to accuse anyone to their political left of this sort of activity is disingenuous in the extreme- the phrases which refer to those jurists who claim to favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution, such as "originalist", "strict constructionist" etc really refer to people who have certain views and ideas about how the country ought to be run and how people should act and who are cherry-picking certain ideas from the Constitution to support their points of view.

After all, if the original Constitution and Bill of Rights were still completely in force, Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas would not only not be on the Supreme Court, he would not be able to vote, and in all likelihood would be someone's property. None of the current woman justices, nor Justice O'Connor, would serve or have served. And Justice Ginsburg, a Jew, would not be eligible to be on the Court as well, even if she were not female.

There are certain elements in our society- and the conservatives are particularly and notably guilty of this, to their endless discredit- who in seeking to remake our society in certain ways of which they approve (making abortion illegal, deregulating business, abolishing a national health insurance system, if we ever get one) try to justify these sorts of actions by citing the original documents of our country as justification for their points of view. This is intellectually dishonest and a slap to the faces of the founders. Any person can promote a point of view about how things ought to be in this country, and they ought to feel free to do so and do it to the best of their ability, but attempting to cloak their points of view in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as if these documents were somehow sacrosanct and holy is idiotic. They are both works in progress, in formal and informal fashion both, and those individuals who seek to remake society should speak plainly and honestly about why they want to make the changes that they want to make- not cite imaginary thoughts of people who have been dead for two hundred years. Ideas about how we should live and how we should be governed should stand or fall on their own merits, not by association with a pile of rhetorical claptrap.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jim,

You have put together, a very clear, easy to understand post. Covering areas that although I have a basic understanding of the issues, meanings and effects, I could never put those thoughts together anywhere near as neatly as you have. Thank you very, very much for joining the discussion!

 

[Cliff Beer]

Yes, definitely, don't get fooled again by guys who use multiple accounts and get banned;

"the one person I know with multiple identities is Cliff Beer"

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/site-questions-suggestions-comments/20846-users-multiple-accounts.html

Yah need some new material there Boob.

 

[Pat]

Actually, my understanding is that there are at least two kinds of law in this country.

The first is statute law- laws written into the books by common agreement. I think the Constitution falls into this category. And so do all the other ordinances, laws, rule, etc, state and municipal.

The second category is case law. This is where judges hand down decisions and those decisions are recorded, and later referred to for one reason or another, in similar cases.

Ideas about how we should live and how we should be governed should stand or fall on their own merits, not by association with a pile of rhetorical claptrap.

Huh???
Case law is not an independent body of law decreed by judges. It is the compiled reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make case relevant interpretations of the existing law and can be cited as precedents in other similar situations. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law" which is the basic statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies and "regulatory law" which is regulations required by executive branch agencies based on legislated statutes. Judges can also determine if an act is inconsistent with previous law (or unconstitutional).
The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood by the founders that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution. That includes the judiciary. Making law is the province of the legislative branch. It seems that I read someplace that...All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. (Note that it does not say the judiciary and the operant term is "all")
I think I read in that same place "...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...” not the European Union or United Nations.
For example, the end of slavery and the rights of former slaves and women to vote wasn't legislated by a judge, they are amendments passed by congress and ratified by the states. There is no "abortion right" specified in the constitution, it has been an interpreted portion of the right of privacy that has in turn been interpreted from the 9th amendment of constitution. That amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The “privacy right” has been judicially interpreted as applying to abortion but doesn’t apply to one’s private internet communications or what data one may maintain on their computer hard drive. They might someday soon. Contrast the clear prohibition on slavery which is clearly defined in the 13th amendment.
The founders intended that if subsequent generations wanted new laws or to change old ones, it would be done by elected representatives, not judges who have no accountability to the people. Take the examples of the Supreme Court deciding in 1973 to protect an interpreted woman's right to privacy in the first trimester of pregnancy and thirty years later to protect the privacy of gay couples from state sodomy laws. Regardless of how you may value these interpretations, they could be eroded, changed or overturned by a future court with a different view of what is "indispensable to the dignity and happiness of a free man." This is one of the core flaws in “judicial activism”. What one judge gives, another can take away. A later judge may see that life begins at conception and the right to life of a fetus trumps the privacy rights of a mother. A hundred and fifty years from now, abortion may be popularly viewed as abhorrent as slavery is today (I hope so). That’s why you pass laws and don't rule by judicial fiat.
Following the example, the founders provided we could amend the Constitution to create a right of privacy that would be beyond the reach of any future court or Congress. Our system is supposed to be based on laws, not men. The founders provided that if you didn't like the constitution, change it. "...The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution..." And that's certainly happened. Those of us that believe in the constitution contend that it has orderly processes for change and history would indicate that’s happened and what should happen. I personally don’t support one judicial activist, left or right, to establish law over the process of the legislative or executive branches and I think that is the “conservative” position that many of us have. Just as conservatives believe in self-determination and wanting the government out of our lives to the greatest extent possible while still maintaining an orderly society.
The government has no business in my bedroom, spending my granddaughter’s taxes, spying in her lunchbox or telling my church which beliefs they must disregard. Nobody is better equipped to run my life than I am and certainly not some idiot in Washington.

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.” Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Ahhhhhh, Veek! Someone gets it still!

The world's thought process has been turned upside down, where someone who speaks of the founding of this country with all its principles, opportunities, and sheer genius the way it used to be taught before the collectivist revolution, is called a "revisionist."

Thanks for putting it down like you did, man, you are a hero.

And, thank you for your service!

 

[Jim Craik]

Bob,

Give us some examples of what you are "fighting against", you know where an "Activist Judge" changed the "Constitution".

I'm still waiting.........