Posted on 10/22/2001 6:49:12 PM PDT by Native American Female Vet
Supreme Court Justice Breyer in speech promotes 'active participation' in democratic process By Dunstan Prial, Associated Press, 10/22/2001 21:35
NEW YORK (AP) Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer issued a subtle poke Monday to those of his colleagues on the nation's highest court who lean toward a literal interpretation of the Constitution. In a speech at New York University School of Law, Breyer said judges should be wary of enforcing a strict reading of the Constitution because the men who wrote the document left many important areas open to interpretation.
''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.''
Five of the nine Supreme Court justices generally vote in favor of a literal interpretation of the Constitution. They are Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, William Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor. The four others Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens tend to be more open to contemporary interpretations.
Breyer contended that constitutional interpretations that take into account contemporary issues ultimately promote what he referred to as ''active liberty,'' or increased participation in the democratic process. ''I believe that increased emphasis upon this active liberty will lead to better constitutional law, a law that will promote governmental solutions consistent with individual rights and community needs,'' Breyer said.
Throughout the Supreme Court's history, the justices have adjusted their constitutional interpretations to reflect the times in which the justices were living, Breyer noted. For example, in the early 19th Century, the court sought to establish a strong federal government. Later that century, the court used its power to block political participation by blacks and to promote the protection of property rights.
And early in the 20th Century, according to Breyer, the court emphasized his definition of ''active liberty.'' But the current court ''has again underemphasized the importance of the citizen's active liberty,'' he said.
Breyer cited campaign finance reform as a current issue that warrants a contemporary constitutional interpretation. Some argue that to limit campaign contributions violates First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
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.''
Nevertheless, by his definition of a constitutional interpretation that promotes active liberty, Breyer said campaign finance laws help promote participation in the democratic process.
Indeed, Breyer said the laws ''help to further the kind of open public political discussion that the First Amendment also seeks to encourage, not simply as an end, but also as a means to achieve a workable democracy.''
Earlier Monday, Breyer visited the site where the World Trade Center's twin towers stood prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. ''I can't tell you anything you don't know,'' he said. ''But it was important for me to see and share this experience with New York.''
Once Breyer and his ilk got through there would be nothing left of it. Literally nothing!
Up is down. Right is left. Black is white. Lalalalala
Who defines "community needs," Mr. Breyer? You? Welcome to the United States Supreme Politburo.
Yes, Mr. Justice Breyer, the citizens of this country can make the Constitution say anything that we want. It's called the amendment procedure. If we want to make it illegal for any non-citizen to come to this country - we can. If we want to limit "rights" to citizens, and not to non-citizens, we can.
so, Mr. Justice Breyer, you'd be well informed to watch what you do, vis a vis the "interpretation" over the next year or so.
There is some validity to this argument, but they probably meant for the interpretations to be derived from something actually written in the Constitution. For example, the Roe v. Wade ruling somehow found medical terminology for deriving a time table for when a fetus could or could not be aborted--something that clearly went beyond interpreting Constitutional text.
Any Freeper who has links to members of Congress particularly the House Managers should begin a serious effort to Impeach Breyer for these public comments.
Breyer has ever right, like any other American, to have any opinion he wants and to say anything that suits him. However as a Supreme Court Justice who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to enforce its provisions, he has stated his clear intention to violate that oath and that the Constitution is not relevant or germane to the decisions he intends to make. He should be Impeached and removed from office immediately. We as Freepers have a duty to end this kind of attack on the Constitution.
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.