Posted on 06/24/2005 9:04:33 PM PDT by Yanni.Znaio
Apparently the Supreme Court was not satisfied with its definitional gymnastics in McConnell v. FEC, where it turned the First Amendment's
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
into
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; However "no law" means that Congress can pass laws governing (1) broadcast ads that (2) refer to a clearly identified candidate for federal office, that (3) are distributed within 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary, and that (4) are targeted to the identified candidate’s electorate."
The latest is Kelo v. New Haven
which has turned the Fifth Amendment's takings clause from
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
into
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, unless it is done "pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals.
The decision also notes that the limitations of the term "public use" were just too restrictive for thousands of city and county petty tyrants and that it has now been redefined as "public purpose", which means "anything that the government wants to do."
When does "public use" not have to mean "public use"?
This Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public."
Interpreting words in a manner inconsistent with their meaning in plain speech: that's the Humpty Dumpty part of the title.
`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
So now, in the first case, the Court has said that restrictions on political speech are constitutional.
Guess what kind of speech the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment? Hint: it wasn't topless dancing.
And now, the scope of the takings clause has been redefined from a narrow "public use", which, to those of us oldsters who grew up in the days when common sense was common and words had definitions which were agreed upon by all parties, meant things like railroad lines, highways, water, sewer and power line easements and the like, to "if it's yours and we want it, it's ours."
This in effect has turned the U.S. into one giant collective farm where all property belongs to the State (if and when it so desires to take it away from you.) That's the kolkhoz part of the title.
You see, if you look at the cast of characters who signed off on these two doublethink-in-legal-form opinions, you will note that they are those who envision the Constitution as a "living document".
And unfortunately, that, too, is the opposite of what it means.
For the Founders meant for the Constitution to be interpreted according to the plain meaning of its words: "East" does not mean "West", and "shall" does not mean "maybe".
The Founders also intended for the Constitution to be difficult to change by requiring the approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures for any proposed constitutional amendment to become law.
They did not intend for the constitutionality of laws to be determined because of "evolving standards of decency" [ Roper v. Simmons ] or by what the European Court of Human Rights thinks [ LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS ]
One would think that the Justices would take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And the plain meaning of those words would imply that the standard against wich laws should be compared in order to determine their constitutionality should be the Constitution and not some nebulous concept or opinions from a foreign court.
If Justices decide the constitutionality of issues not on the language of the Constitution but on such things as those listed above, well, I was going to say they violate their judicial oath.
However, I can't seem to get a firm answer on just what they do swear to when they are sworn in, and the sites I'm turning up I can't vouch for their accuracy, so I will not reference them here.
If the Constitution isn't composed of words whose meaning is consistent with their use in plain speech, then the Constitution means nothing.
In other words, if the Constitution is a "living document" then it's DEAD.
And to think that some of the most recent appointmees to the federal judiciary were called "extremists" and "out of the mainstream" because they had the audacity to publicly state that the Constitution Meant What It Said.
From the reasoning (or lack thereof) employed in the judicial gymnastics discussed above, I'd say that those are EXACTLY the type of judges this country so desperately needs.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this knocktogether article.
The current Supreme Court has done more to obliterate the Constitution then probably any in the country's history. Previous courts for the most part tended to find rights that didn't exist as in Roe v Wade, this one is spending its time stripping our fundamental rights away.
Okay, you added "probably".
I was going to suggest that the courts during Roosevelt's terms, as a fundamental change in the scope of government occurred during that time.
Previous courts for the most part tended to find rights that didn't exist as in Roe v Wade, this one is spending its time stripping our fundamental rights away.
Bad reasoning in that case, to claim rights "emanating from penumbras" and all that.
Sounds like somebody did too much peyote and too little reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And don't start off about "rights that didn't exist".
It never ceases to amaze me how so many social conservatives are strict constructionist/federalists and proclaim that the entire purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was to limit the proper role of government by enumerating a list of powers and activities that were the only things that the federal government was allowed to do-- until they get to Roe v. Wade--
And then their position stands on its head!
They talk about "rights that don't exist" which implies that the Constitution and Bill of Rights enumerate the rights of the people to the exclusion of all others-- and if a right isn't listed, then the people don't have it.
I've even heard Limbaugh do this.
That misconception was one of the reasons prompting opposition to a written Bill of Rights- that it would be construed as exclusive rather than inclusive.
1. The rights were always there. (Amendments 9 and 10)
2. The Constitution references "persons born".
And, as a footnote, my own personal opinion is that Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it's badly reasoned-- were this to happen, then the question of abortion should properly revert to a matter to be decided by each state.
Congressman Billybob
When it comes to Roe v Wade there is no written protected right to an abortion that would prevent Congress or state legislatures from prohibiting it. The Supreme Court in effect found one.
They talk about "rights that don't exist" which implies that the Constitution and Bill of Rights enumerate the rights of the people to the exclusion of all others-- and if a right isn't listed, then the people don't have it.
Again that's the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general, it clearly spells out where Congress can and cannot go legislatively. We don't have a right to do whatever we please, there has to be laws we're governed by otherwise we end up with chaos. If something isn't listed that we as individuals and as a society believe we're entitled to but legislators deny anyway then it's our right and duty to vote them out.
Thank you.
As for your latest column, and considering the latest antics of those wacky Democrats, from now on, when I see somebody referred to as Senator Bedfellow (Dem-Illinois) I shall be unable to see the "Dem" as an abbreviation for anything except
"demented".
Don't go and fuzz up the debate by discussing rights in a combined federal and state context, because each must be treated differently, as they are each controlled by different documents.
Free speech may be a God-given right we're all entitled to regardless but since man is easily corrupted by power the Founders had to put it in writing to make sure Congress would understand that fundamental principle and not infringe upon it.
I stand by my earlier statement: a vigorous debate surrounded the adoption of the Bill of Rights, with the reasoning supplied as one of the anti-adoption side's points.
When it comes to Roe v Wade there is no written protected right to an abortion that would prevent Congress or state legislatures from prohibiting it. The Supreme Court in effect found one.
Indeed. But since the central government was a creation of the several States, is it not therefore inferior to said States?
This was the predominant thought until Lincoln demolished it at the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives.
They talk about "rights that don't exist" which implies that the Constitution and Bill of Rights enumerate the rights of the people to the exclusion of all others-- and if a right isn't listed, then the people don't have it.
Again that's the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general, it clearly spells out where Congress can and cannot go legislatively.
We don't have a right to do whatever we please, there has to be laws we're governed by otherwise we end up with chaos.
I never advocated anarchy, just a small-l libertarian government that restrains its actions to the documents by which it was created, whether federal, state or local constitution or charter.
If something isn't listed that we as individuals and as a society believe we're entitled to but legislators deny anyway then it's our right and duty to vote them out.
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Cartridge.
They need to realize that taking any of them away increases the probability that the remaining ones will be used.
bump
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.