Skip to comments.Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer Jabs Those Who Read Constitution Literally
Posted on 10/23/2001 10:00:46 AM PDT by 11th Earl of MarEdited 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 ...
Translation: If it fits our agenda.
I don't expect anything less from Breyer. (Where's the gag alert? hehehe)
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.
Why? If anything goes, that's just another option. He should be happy with that interpretation as any other.
In other words, tend to be more open to their own private, individual, without basis, interpretations.
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.
There is a distinct disconnect in Breyer's statement.
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...
And if my statement offended any one of them, I guess that means I hit the nail on the head.
|SUBJECT: The Constitution is The Property of the People - Not the Court!
|Our Republic...If we can keep it... | Van's Homepage | US Congress2000 | Desert Storm Book Preview ||
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.
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.
If the Supreme Court can say it means whatever in the Hell they want, then why the need for the Constitution?
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."
I think it is time to change it to
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'.
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.
LOL! Point of correction, however, he did in fact say "Here I art!"
As a remedy against new laws in violation of the Constitution?
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.
Whoa, you're one step ahead; stay back with the rest of the class, please.
"A government of lawyers, not of men".
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 Free Republic page related to original intent, enumeration of powers, and the wording
used in the Second Amendment ---
And brityank's, Free Republic page, providing as follows ---
*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.
"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.
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.
What Breyer should have been SILENT in this case rather than say/spew liberal drivel.
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.
Breyer is a buffoon.
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.