Skip to comments.The case for 'originalism' - (return to original intent of Founders & Ratifiers is essential)
Posted on 06/06/2005 3:05:36 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Today's battles over judges have too often broken down along party lines. Democrats sought to filibuster judicial nominees. Republicans worked to guarantee nominees an up-or-down vote. Even the uneasy "truce" achieved last month was the result of politics, not principle. The partisan division is unfortunate, because the judiciary is no place to be playing politics. "Judges shouldn't be liberal or conservative, since the Constitution isn't liberal or conservative," as President Ronald Reagan once observed.
Taking the politics out of the judiciary is a key tenet behind the concept of constitutional originalism. That's the idea that judges should issue rulings based on the original understanding of the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- rather than on outcomes that reflect the judges' personal biases or policy preferences.
In 1985, just a few months into my tenure as attorney general, I decided to open a national discussion about this idea. In a speech before the American Bar Association, I urged that the country ought to move back toward originalism.
The way originalists read the Constitution, through the eyes of its authors, it remains very much alive, and very much relevant to today's political and legal discussions.
The move toward originalism is a marathon, not a sprint. Law schools, practicing attorneys and even judges are slowly realizing the importance of grounding their decisions on the bedrock of original understanding instead of the shifting sands of public or personal opinion.
This is a debate that will go on, probably for decades. But, if we are to be faithful to the Constitution, it's a debate that must end where it began -- with the words of the Framers emerging victorious.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
The acts of the above violate the rights of others so their can be no right of privacy when a person commits a wrongful act.
Prof. Barnett in his book, "Restoring the Lost Constitution makes the following statement which will help you with your example of "overly broad" rights:
"Natural rights define the boundary or space within which people are at liberty to do as they please provided their actions do not interfere with the rightful actions of others operating within their own boundaries or spaces."
That's not so. If her bodily organs were hers to "control" then presumably she should be able to sell them. She can't even sell her fetus, only kill it.
Yes, she should. But that's not the issue, and never has been. The issue is whether or not an embryo or fetus is morally a person with its own right to life. That's the controvery--nothing more, nothing less.
I have an adopted daughter.
Because "private" adoption agencies house, feed, cloth, and provide medical services to the birth mother during gestation, in order to help protect the fetus from an irresponsible birth mother,I would say that is in effect, selling her fetus.
If she's too irresponsible to have a baby, then giving up her baby is the responsible thing to do. Did she get money for it? If she didn't then she didn't sell it.