Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer Jabs Those Who Read Constitution Literally
Newsday ^ | 10/23/01

Posted on 10/23/2001 10:00:46 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar

Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

NEW YORK -- Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a subtle jab at his conservative colleagues, said those who favor a literal interpretation of the Constitution aren't necessarily following the framers' wishes.

The men who wrote the Constitution left many important areas open to interpretation, Breyer said in a speech Monday at New York University School of Law.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last
The liberals want to have it both ways. When it is abortion, the Constitution is a 'living breathing document' that mandates states allow abortion on demand. And when liberals wanted Gore for president, they were erroneously claiming 'literal interpretation' and 'states rights.'
1 posted on 10/23/2001 10:00:46 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
"Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- tend to be more open to contemporary interpretations."

Translation: If it fits our agenda.

I don't expect anything less from Breyer. (Where's the gag alert? hehehe)

2 posted on 10/23/2001 10:05:39 AM PDT by WIMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Breyer cited campaign finance reform as a current issue that warrants a contemporary constitutional interpretation.

Yo Breyer! Can someone clue this idiot into the fact that September 11th wiped Campaign Finance Reform off the slate! Gone, dead, buried, kaput -- and not a moment too soon.

3 posted on 10/23/2001 10:06:11 AM PDT by I am still Casey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Judges should be wary of enforcing a strict reading of the Constitution, Breyer said.

Why? If anything goes, that's just another option. He should be happy with that interpretation as any other.

4 posted on 10/23/2001 10:07:44 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
If Breyer and his ilk prevail, we are no longer a free people!
5 posted on 10/23/2001 10:09:50 AM PDT by FiddlePig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Thread I
6 posted on 10/23/2001 10:09:54 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
To bad the title is incorrect. It should read:
Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer Jabs Those Who Read Constitution Literally
7 posted on 10/23/2001 10:13:50 AM PDT by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
The four others -- Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- tend to be more open to contemporary interpretations.

In other words, tend to be more open to their own private, individual, without basis, interpretations.

8 posted on 10/23/2001 10:17:22 AM PDT by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
"Those more literalist judges who emphasize language, history, tradition and precedent cannot justify their practices by claiming that is what the framers wanted," Breyer said, "For the framers did not say specifically what factors judges should emphasize when seeking to interpret the Constitution's open language."

You see, you shouldn't try to determine what the Founders wanted by what they wrote. You need to make it up as you go along. Why "emphasize" anything? To what "open language" does he refer? He's making my point for me, for cryin' out loud.

9 posted on 10/23/2001 10:17:57 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Yep, more "living document" BS by people who think the Constitution says whatever they say it says. The Constitution means nothing to these people.
10 posted on 10/23/2001 10:19:25 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
I also was rather astounded at that statement, especially when it comes from a Supreme Court Justice. How can one know what the Framers of the Constitution intended without reading what was written by the Framers, understanding the writings influencing the minds of the Framers, and subsequent rulings from the early days of the Republic?

There is a distinct disconnect in Breyer's statement.

11 posted on 10/23/2001 10:22:48 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?
12 posted on 10/23/2001 10:23:39 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Note To Breyer: GWB will outlast you and appoint your successor.
13 posted on 10/23/2001 10:24:22 AM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe
I'm also surprised that Breyer would admit that he does not believe in the rule of law.
14 posted on 10/23/2001 10:26:27 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Breyer noted the Constitution "does not define the freedom of speech in any detail. The nation's founders did not speak directly about campaign contributions."

The Constitution also does not say that a judge in the highest court should not make stupid statements. Apparently Breyer has chosen to take the liberal interpretation...

15 posted on 10/23/2001 10:27:07 AM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
For the clueless idiots on the Supreme Court (and other courts as well), the 9th and 10th Amendments are there for a reason.

And if my statement offended any one of them, I guess that means I hit the nail on the head.

16 posted on 10/23/2001 10:31:00 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
SUBJECT: The Constitution is The Property of the People - Not the Court!

excerpts from
ten foundations for America's future



GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE

  The Constitution provides the legitimate foundations of this country as a nation that is of the people and by the people
 

We, the people, are the caretakers of the Constitution of the United States. Our charge is to pass on to future generations of Americans the rights and privileges that have been passed to us for over two centuries. It is a trust.

The notion that Supreme Court Justices, government officials or elite scholars are the only Americans who may offer worthwhile opinions on constitutional issues is far too narrow, and open to error. At most, their years of study and review offer a snapshot view when put into perspective along side the centuries the document has existed.

Our Constitution, and interpretations of it, belong as much to the proprietor of a small business, the homemaker, the college freshman, the taxi driver, and the newly naturalized immigrant as it does to any American.

We must guard this document and the Bill of Rights with vigilance.



About the Writer....

Van Jenerette is a Senior Policy adivisor to U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, 1st Congressional District, South Carolina. He served as a Congressional Staff Assistant to U.S. Rep. Arthur Ravenel, Jr., 1st Congressional District, South Carolina from 1992 to 1994 and was a candidate for the 1st District Congressional seat in the 2000 election. Jenerette is a Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology at the University of South Carolina, where he has also taught Sociology. Van presently teaches Political Science and Sociology as a full time faculty member at Southeastern Community College, and he teaches Social Theory at Coastal Carolina University. He is a U.S. Army veteran; he has studied five languages and has lived in three foreign countries and is the father of six children.

Jenerette is married to Katherine Schmidt of Newport News, Virginia who served with the US Army in Operation Desert Storm and now teaches American History and Western Civilization.


 
  Our Republic...If we can keep it... | Van's Homepage | US Congress2000 | Desert Storm Book Preview |  

17 posted on 10/23/2001 10:31:39 AM PDT by Van Jenerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
So, anything ever written by Breyer might mean something else too? Maybe what he said here is not really what he said? Or meant to say? Is this one of those "is is" things?

I wonder whay people like doofus Breyer refer to the document as a "living document" when they really think it's mostly dead?

The US Constitution is our "glass slipper". Either it fits or it does not.

18 posted on 10/23/2001 10:31:56 AM PDT by isthisnickcool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Nonsense. That little communist Breyer will still be spouting his claptrap long after Bush is out of office. If Bush gets the chance to appoint a justice, he'll appoint some mealy-mouthed jerkoff who has kissed the proper backsides, just as he has done with his cabinet. Where you get all this faith in Bush, I'll never understand.
19 posted on 10/23/2001 10:33:50 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
Good point. I am beginning to see Roe v. Wade in a 'living and breathing' way. I think it means only what future justices says it means.
20 posted on 10/23/2001 10:35:07 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
That's exactly right! As long as these socialist b@stards are in charge of interpreting the Constitution, our Republic will never be safe. Clintons' pinko appointments to the SC will be his most enduring legacy.
21 posted on 10/23/2001 10:37:07 AM PDT by backlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
So the Liberals will tell you that it is all in the Interpretation. I would like to address this now. There is a big difference between Interpret and Translate. Translate is to move the meaning of the words in question into another language while keeping the same meaning. (This could also include factors like “Context”) Interpretation on the other hand, is either an attempt to understand words which we do not understand the meaning of or, when we try to change the meaning of words that we do understand.

An example of this would be found in the play Romeo and Juliet, when Juliet says “Romeo, Romeo, where fore art thou Romeo?”. What do you think this means? Most people today will answer this by saying that she was asking Romeo where he was. Bugs Bunny says “Here I am!”. Now this is an interpretation based on Ignorance. In Elizabethan English, which is what this play was written in, Juliet by saying “Where fore art Thou” was actually asking Romeo “By what right do you call yourself Romeo?”. She was asking this because it was by his name that they where forbidden to be together.

Interpretation is what the “Liberals” use to change the meanings of words, that we all know and understand, to suit their own desires. The words in the Constitution and Bill of rights have not lost their meaning over the last 200 years. We all recognize and understand the meaning of these words.

When you change the meaning of words which are clear then you are a liar. The “Liberals” are notorious for this exact thing. President Clinton was the “Greatest Liberal leader” of the last century and look at how many times he lied and twisted words for his own selfish desires. Liberals do not promote “Democracy” they are not “Truthful” and they do not care about anybody but themselves. To further illustrate this point I would like to point out that even in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary “Liberals” will reject the truth.

22 posted on 10/23/2001 10:37:16 AM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WIMom
Thank goodness Breyer is in the minority. And thanks be to Allah that Algore is not in the White House.
23 posted on 10/23/2001 10:37:46 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
The bleatings of a broken man who realizes his precious worldview is on the way out.
24 posted on 10/23/2001 10:39:38 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Breyer said, "For the framers did not say specifically what factors judges should emphasize when seeking to interpret the Constitution's open language."

Acutally, I couldn't agree more with Justice Breyer. The Framers never provided any guidance on how to interpret the Constitution. Oh, hold on...

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.
Federalist No. 78

Never mind.
25 posted on 10/23/2001 10:40:09 AM PDT by scalia_#1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?

If the Supreme Court can say it means whatever in the Hell they want, then why the need for the Constitution?

26 posted on 10/23/2001 10:42:08 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
I ti is VERY scary to think that someone is SWORN to uphold the Consitution thinks they are sworn to uphold it as THEY interpret.
27 posted on 10/23/2001 10:42:13 AM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
"When it is abortion, the Constitution is a 'living breathing document' that mandates states allow abortion on demand."

Let me clear up this imprecise phrase.

1--The Constitution does not mandate the states allow abortion on demand.

2--Roe v Wade was a "strict constructionist" ruling, not a ruling decided on the premise of a "living, breathing document."

Justice Blackmun cited the Ninth Amendment as the constitutional basis for "prohibiting" the states from making abortion illegal.

The Ninth Amendments states: "The enumeration in the Contitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

On the assumption (erroneous I might add) that a fetus is part of woman's body, she has a retained right, that cannot be denied or disparaged by any government body.

Unquestionably "strict constructionist."

28 posted on 10/23/2001 10:42:46 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
The slogan used to be "Impeach Earl Warren!"

I think it is time to change it to

"Impeach Stephen Breyer!"

29 posted on 10/23/2001 10:44:54 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Five of the nine Supreme Court justices generally vote in favor of a literal interpretation -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor.

Contrary to what the socialist (I refuse to call them liberal) Breyer thinks, Scalia has specifically stated that he is not a Constitutional literalist; he is a Constitutional textualist. He bases his opinions first on the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution and the context or circumstances under which a particular section of the Constituion was adopted and particularily studies what was the intent of each provision in the Constitution.

In a sense, I believe the Constitution is a 'living document' is much the way that the Bible is a 'living document'. The truth does not change and what was true at the time there were written is still true today. It is the socialists who are trying to kill the 'living Constitution'.

30 posted on 10/23/2001 10:45:40 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar; joanie-f; brityank; snopercod; M Kehoe; mercy; JeanS
Guy's an anarchist.

He argues against the basis of a contract!

And he's lying, because he is not admitting his purposeful mis-representation of history, the truth of which, is that considerable failure analysis of past goverments and governance, was engaged in by the framers.

The flexibility originally intended for the Constitution, was provided for by the amendment process; not, by contemporary dismissal of historical bases for the Constitution's provisions.

The Justice is purposefully misleading people away from what he actually knows to be true, and doing so for his personal and political aims.

Some of the most fundamental "fore-sight" within the Constitution, is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. These amendments were never intended to apply to the first decade of the country and then lapse.

But that is what the Justice wishes for the people to believe.

He is un-noble. What a bastard.

31 posted on 10/23/2001 10:46:10 AM PDT by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Question for Mr. Justice Breyer: What's the point of a written Constitution if what is says doesn't matter?
32 posted on 10/23/2001 10:46:15 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Bugs Bunny says “Here I am!”.

LOL! Point of correction, however, he did in fact say "Here I art!"

33 posted on 10/23/2001 10:46:59 AM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
Unfortunately, that ruling has been twisted into something resembling an absolute right, with the abortion rights people dmanding that government subsidize their private right to choose.
34 posted on 10/23/2001 10:48:08 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: Wolfie
If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?

As a remedy against new laws in violation of the Constitution?

36 posted on 10/23/2001 10:50:13 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
The Constitution, as believed by the liberal interpreters of it, is not a "living document." This is proven by one very simple point within the Constitution itself.

The framers provided for changes. A change can be made according to a process of amendment ratification.

Therefore, there's no justification for "creative" readings of what is otherwise plain text.

If one wants the Constitution to say something other than what a literal reading might construe it to mean, then start the process to change it. If you cannot change it by the approved legal, constitutional method, then you've been voted down, and you don't get your change.

37 posted on 10/23/2001 10:50:30 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Question for Mr. Justice Breyer: What's the point of a written Constitution if what it says doesn't matter?

Well said! If it doesn't mean what it says, then it doesn't mean anything.
38 posted on 10/23/2001 10:50:54 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
"...then why the need for the Constitution/"

Whoa, you're one step ahead; stay back with the rest of the class, please.

"A government of lawyers, not of men".

Wonderful, eh??

39 posted on 10/23/2001 10:52:48 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Oh yeah, and that's worked so well, hasn't it? Food for thought: Hologram Of Liberty
40 posted on 10/23/2001 10:53:44 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
41 posted on 10/23/2001 10:54:09 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Situation Ethics --- If it feels good at the time (for me) do it!
42 posted on 10/23/2001 10:54:56 AM PDT by TRY ONE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar; snopercod; brityank
Original Intent and Enumeration of Powers v. Herz

Constitution Opinion Keywords: GUN CONTROL GOVERNMENT BY JUDICIARY RULE OF LAW ENUMERATION ORIGINAL INTENT
Source: several
Published: March 27, 2000 Author: First_Salute
Posted on 03/27/2000 10:25:36 PST by First_Salute

Original Intent and Enumeration of Powers v. Herz

In reply to Dan from Michigan's posts:

Long-"Gun Crazy"-Constitutional... (article against individual ownership of weapons, against original intent, and against related limits upon government, by Andrew Herz)

Under First: The New Consensus... (rebuttal article by Don B Kates and Randy E. Barnett)

David Barton wrote an excellent book, Original Intent, The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, I believe that a series of such books for each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, and/or an original intent dictionary for the Bill of Rights, need(s) to be published, to help secure the Founding Fathers' and Framers' original intent and make it more easily available to the public, as well as common knowledge in the culture.

Much of the public is unaware of the importance of both original intent and enumeration of powers --- and how these basics of American jurisprudence are fundamental to limiting the powers of government. It is unfortunate that these basic concepts are not taught along with the "checks and balances of federalism," in our classrooms. And it is also unfortunate that these basic concepts are not now refreshments to, or included in, articles in the rare and elusive "conservative print media."

Because original intent and enumeration of powers are our peaceful checks against the whole of the three parts of the federal government, the legislative, executive and judicial branches --- and against the government becoming corrupt and tyrannical through its failure to adhere.

To make a word mean other than its creator's defined intent, may be used for humor. But to make the language mean other than the Framers' use, is to render the rule of law meaning---less and a path to war.

To have Liberty and a free republic responsive to the rule of law, requires adherence to the law.

But if the law is slippery, because the language suffers (as it has) from "lawyering" such as Mr. Herz's, then the law cannot be adhered to, which in-adherence is the design of authoritarian centrism whereby it achieves ruling power for the ultimate minority --- Clintonism's supremely judgemental committees and their enforcers, the "politically correct 'thought police'" ... and their progeny.*

Then, the protection that is equal for each and all of us before the law, is meaning---less and ignored before such regents of arrogating committees, courtrooms and regimes of socialism.* The scrapped rule of law is replaced by the dialogue, generated in the "politics of the moment," for the benefit of, and by, dialogists such as Mr. Herz, in the model of his worship, William J. Clinton, who "is" our "President."

Furthermore, "to make the language mean other than the Framers' original intent, is to" fabricate a by-pass through "Extra-Constitutional Space" around the right of the people to make the laws through their elected representatives. A right that is obviously at odds with Mr. Herz's allegience to "government by judiciary" and the design of authoritarian centrism.*

From : Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Foutheenth Amendment, by Raoul Berger, ©1977. Page 287 ---

Given a Constitution designed to "limit" the exercise of all delegated power ... the admonition contained in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, drafted by John Adams and paralleled in a number of early State constitutions, [was] that "A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution ... [is] absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty and to maintain a free government ... The people ... have a right to require of their law givers and magistrates an exact and constant observance of them."

The author of Government by Judiciary, is a retired Harvard Law School professor. Inside the front jacket of the book: "He writes: 'The Fourteenth Amendment is the case study par excellence [on the] continuing revision of the Constitution under the guise of interpretation.'" For more information on Prof. Berger, here on the Internet:

Profile in Constitutional Courage

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (re: Government by Judiciary)

A Free Republic page related to original intent and the wording used in the Second Amendment ---

A Defining Second (Amendment) - Part III by tangofox

A Free Republic page related to original intent, enumeration of powers, and the wording
used in the Second Amendment ---

Liberals Play SCRABBLE With The Constitution

And brityank's, Free Republic page, providing as follows ---

The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars

*As a "friendly reminder" to Mr. Herz's recruits:

From a December 12, 1999 article, "Sabrin Draws Fire on Gun Control Remarks," originally published in the Newark, NJ Star-Ledger and now posted at Murray Sabrin for U.S. Senate:
"Gun control does not lead to an erosion of civil liberties, said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, who delivered a speech Saturday urging members of Reform synagogues to launch a campaign for gun control..."

"... he said Sabrin's analogies were inappropriate. 'His fundamental point seems to be that gun registration leads to an undermining of civil liberties. That's a claim utterly without merit,' he said."

The Rabbi's comments certainly disregard the timeless lessons of history. From the National Rifle Association's archives: New research on the Nazi confiscation of registered guns--and execution of gun owners.

Indeed, the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is aware of this and responded on March 22, 2000, to Rabbi Eric Yoffie: Jewish Group ... Condemns Reform Rabbi's ... Stance. The same day that "Senator Reed (D-RI) ... introduced S. 2099, The Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000. Its stated purpose is: 'To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, and for other purposes.'"

We only have the rights we can defend, as long as we are able.

Sincerely,

First_Salute
"I'll be back!"
And thank you Dan from Michigan; I did not sleep last night for fear of leaving my fellow freedom fighters without this bit of moral support, in response to your two posts worth study.

43 posted on 10/23/2001 10:58:20 AM PDT by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?

As a remedy against new laws in violation of the Constitution?

Oh yeah, and that's worked so well, hasn't it?

I believe the majority of SCOTUS failings are due to a loose interpretation of the the Constitution.

44 posted on 10/23/2001 10:58:22 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
I am very familiar with the liberals' use of "interpretation" as a means around the true meaning of the Constitution. In Roe v. Wade the Court used "interpretations" to evolve into the Right of Privacy (somehow based on the first, fourth, and fifth amendments). What the court should have done is stated that "The Constitution is SILENT on this issue", therefore the tenth amendment (or States' Rights) stands.

What Breyer should have been SILENT in this case rather than say/spew liberal drivel.

45 posted on 10/23/2001 10:59:29 AM PDT by DiamondDon1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
The problem with Ginsburg and more liberal Justices is that they will contort the Constitution to whatever they want. Take the death penalty. The Constitution specifically mentions or alludes to the death penalty. However, the liberals want to negate that language in the Constituion by saying that the death penalty is cruel or unusual punishment. Rules of constitutional and statutory construction won't allow one to interpret it that way.
46 posted on 10/23/2001 11:00:19 AM PDT by pchuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Oh, well, then heck, all we have to do is get the SC to cut it out with the loose interpretations. But then, there isn't really a way to do that, is there? I think the fix has been in from the start.
47 posted on 10/23/2001 11:01:14 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
From the Decemvirs in ancient Rome to Magna Carta, to the Constitution, ordinary people have fought and died to have the laws written down clearly and concisely in a language intelligible to all.

Now the liberal legal establishment in the U.S. is fighting for the right to allow them to "interpret" written laws as loosely as possible, and in a manner supportive of their atheistic, anti-American left-wing agenda. If a law doesn't mean what it clearly states in language obvious to the general public, what use is it? The COnstitution is a very clear and concise document in most cases and the arguments for it being subject to "interpretation" are both specious and self-serving.

Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens are a disgrace to the office they all hold. They are the best of arguments for time limits to these conceited arrogant attorneys with political connections. No one should be appointed to office for life.

48 posted on 10/23/2001 11:03:55 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
I don't think it is proper for Supreme Court Justice to give an opinion on the constitutionality of legislation that has not passed and likely never will pass.

Breyer is a buffoon.

49 posted on 10/23/2001 11:04:06 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
The men who wrote the Constitution left many important areas open to interpretation

Yeh, Right!! Just enough so a**holes like Beyer can change the spirit of the Law to whatever they want. How'd this sh*ithead get into SCOTUS anyway. I'm so sick of subjectivism and relativism I could puke.

50 posted on 10/23/2001 11:04:22 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson