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 ...
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".
Wonderful, eh??
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.