Posted on 07/26/2014 7:34:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
We rely on the Supreme Court to defend the Constitution from the endless assaults on it that chip away our liberty. Too bad Supreme Court Justices don’t have a higher opinion of the document. Ruth Bader Ginsberg has denounced it, recommending instead the socialist constitution of South Africa. The odious Stephen Breyer appears to attack it at every opportunity (e.g., here, here, and here). Now we hear this from swing vote Anthony Kennedy:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking at the annual conference of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Monterey, waxed eloquent on the deficiencies of the Constitution and implied that those who believe in the original intent of the Constitution by swearing fealty to the original, literal meaning are misguided.
Most of Kennedy’s nearly hour-long speech focused on the Magna Carta, originally signed in 1215 and due for its 800th anniversary next year. But he couldn’t resist taking a swipe at the Constitution, noting, “The Constitution of the United States is a flawed document,” its “thinly veiled language… basically reaffirmed the legality of slavery.” Kennedy was referencing the section of the Constitution in which each slave was defined as three-fifths of a person in the estimation of how many congressional delegates each state was allotted. He added that the soldiers who died in the Civil War were “one of the things it cost for having a Constitution that was flawed.”
At the time the Constitution was written, the economy of the southern states was totally reliant on slave labor. A constitution forbidding slavery would never have held the nation together, because no southern state would have agreed to it.
As liberals tend to forget, slavery was a nearly ubiquitous feature of civilization throughout the world until it was largely ended by Anglo-Saxons in the 19th century, the British navy playing a major role.
Presenting a constitution forbidding slavery in 18th century America would have been a waste of everyone’s time.
That doesn’t mean the Constitution is flawed. It means that it sometimes needs to be amended to keep pace with changing times — as it has been. This is a relatively superficial process, very different from proclaiming the whole thing to be flawed and rejecting it in favor of a “living constitution” that says whatever the prevailing majority wants it to say at any given moment.
Unsurprisingly, the main person the Supremes need to defend the Constitution against also regards it as “deeply flawed.”
Don’t count on Kennedy to stop him.
All Kennedys are flawed.
Say what?
Well I guess so since no one obeys the law. What does a little thing like a constitution matter. we are ruled by criminals.
The Constitution isn’t flawed because it clearly provides procedures to amend it. But because it’s difficult to amend the constitution, the perpetual know-it-alls who think they know how everyone should live want to be able to change things easily on their personal whim.
And the slavery example is ridiculous because slavery is an example of how the Constitution was properly amended as provided by the founders, and slavery was abolished in the 13th Amendment.
basically reaffirmed the legality of slavery
What an idiot. The South was punished by those who wrote the Constitution. Since it wanted slaves they couldn’t benefit politically from slavery in their representation in Congress.
I didn’t go to some Ivy League expensive college to know this.
That's nonsense. Most of us southerners have ancestors who did their own farm work. Only a small perecentage of southerners owned slaves. A complaint of small farmers was that they literally had to "compete against slave labor."
It's true the south would not have joined the US without legal slavery, but the reasons were not that it was "totally reliant on slave labor". Probably just the big money interests and their backers were near totally reliant.
There is a process for amending it.
[ But he couldn’t resist taking a swipe at the Constitution, noting, “The Constitution of the United States is a flawed document,” its “thinly veiled language… basically reaffirmed the legality of slavery.” Kennedy was referencing the section of the Constitution in which each slave was defined as three-fifths of a person in the estimation of how many congressional delegates each state was allotted. ]
We should have counted them as a WHOLE person and just handed the House of Reps over to the south....
I am sure there would have been slaves sent into the house to represent the slave populations of the frickin south....
Freeking Moron...
http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=podcasts&id=191&is_corp=0
7/25/14 listen to mark levin tearing down this damned fool!
It’s incredible the number of justices Republicans have gotten wrong. The Dems never miss on their SCOTUS nominees. Ever.
There was no need for a sarcasm tag in my post, just as there was no need for a sarcasm tag in the article as it is generally understood, except by Kennedy, that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, many economies were dependent on slave labor.
So it that POTUS NBC requirement, huh.
Other than the Constitution being badly neglected, given the states can amend the Constitution at their pleasure, I don’t see any significant problems with the Constitution other than it is not being taught as the Founding States had intented for it to be understood.
That’s why it includes an amendment process.....
Kennedy is a senile old bastard, IMHO. What the hell would he know about the Constitution?
I wouldn’t call it flawed. In fact it’s perfect. There are means to fix anything that’s later deemed to have been wrong.
Kind of like today, where the DEMS demand illegal immigration where the
immigrants will work for far less money in farm fields, hotels, restaurants,
ect.ect. . What the HELL is the difference today than when they were
considered slaves??? Only NOW they WANT us ALL to be working as
slaves to the government!!!!!
This is sheer stupidity. They have lost the forest for the trees. The United States Constitution uniquely for 230 years insured an orderly transition of power; this was virtually unknown in the world at the time and still eludes great swaths of mankind. It takes a stooge not to see the monumental achievement it was for that society to produce that result.
Ninth Circus and he’s the ringmaster. Goof. Thanks Bush.
But we can dominate the thoughtspace. God’s on our side, no?
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.