Original Intent for All

Campus Report ^ | September 17, 2008 | Irene Warren

[bs9021]

Original Intent for All

by: Irene Warren, September 17, 2008

Although conservatives generally embrace the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, while liberals see it as a living document, one legal scholar points out that a liberal read of the document constrains both left and right, while an interpretive one lends itself to exploitation by such political factions.

“When liberated from the original meaning of the Constitution, both left and right became free to use the courts, both to pursue their political agendas and to obstruct the political agendas of their opponents,” said Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “This, in turn, has led to the politicization of the judicial selection process that we are experiencing today,” Barnett noted. “All these consequences and many more, are the prices to be paid for abandoning the original meaning of the Constitutions amended—the whole Constitution—each and every clause of it,” he added.

Against the backdrop of recent Supreme Court rulings and constant changes in government, the Chapman School of Law and the Federalist Society hosted an event recently at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research to discuss the future of federalism: scholars addressed tough Constitutional issues, as they debated over the appropriate level of judicial power and its role in deciding disputes over federal and state’s scope of authority.

“Debates over the importance of federalism are often obscured,” Barnet pointed out, while quoting a passage in a recent article he had written. “The fact is that there are not one, but three distinct versions of Constitutional federalism that have developed since the Founding,” he added.....

[jtom36]

Barnett is a very wise man.. - In the linked article he writes:

"I would maintain that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment amended the Constitution", - “under this reading, states were prohibited from enacting laws that infringed upon the fundamental rights of any or all of their citizens.”
“The Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibited legislation that either violated fundamental rights across the board or discriminated in their recognition and protection.
" Regrettably, this alteration of federalism by the Reconstruction Amendments was judicially repealed by the Supreme Court,”.

What Barnett is too polite to write is the fact that the SCOTUS has no power to 'judicially repeal' an Amendment.

[jtom36]

Although conservatives generally embrace the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, while liberals see it as a living document, one legal scholar points out that a [literal] read of the document constrains both left and right, while an interpretive one lends itself to exploitation by such political factions.
“When liberated from the original meaning of the Constitution, both left and right became free to use the courts, both to pursue their political agendas and to obstruct the political agendas of their opponents,” said Randy Barnett, ---

Yep, both liberals and certain 'conservatives' are guilty of using constitutional 'interpretations' to further their own political goals. -- It's past due time to 'out ' such unconstitutional behavior..