Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
"That question contradicts itself, given how I just defined "judicial activism".

You're assuming that everyone knows the "true meaning" of some disputed part of the Constitution. Those that know the true meaning yet go against it are enganging in judicial activism. Those that want to stay with the meaning are strict constuctionists.

I say it's not that black and white. I say that there are people (and judges) who believe the true meaning of some part of the Constitution is totally opposite of what you and I believe. Who, then, is the activist? Who, then, is the strict constructionist?

600 posted on 08/08/2004 12:49:28 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
You're assuming that everyone knows the "true meaning" of some disputed part of the Constitution.

No, I'm assuming the self-evident position that there is a true meaning to each of the parts of the Constitution. I'm not assuming that "everyone knows" what the meaning is, only that it's knowable.

606 posted on 08/08/2004 1:09:56 PM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson