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

To: MisterRepublican
"Our Constitution is one that evolves. What's the best way to know? State legislatures - but it doesn't hurt to know what other countries are doing."

She should be immediately impeached for her views on this.

Sadly, she won't be.

2 posted on 04/22/2005 4:31:38 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: PBRSTREETGANG

Didnt Scalia recently say the Constitution was not a living document? I guess he and Sandra Day dont exactly see eye to eye on that one. How old is she anyway?


3 posted on 04/22/2005 4:33:16 AM PDT by PubliusEXMachina (Ashely's Story)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: PBRSTREETGANG

Do agree, While we slept the gang in black have installed
themselves as gods.If the Constitution they see is one
of evolutionary change- then it is NOT the Constitution
drafted 1789-1791. And if the Supreme Law of the land means
only what the high priests of the cult of law say it does
then they-not the Constitution is supreme law. IF there is no standard of language and intent of the men who drafted the document yet recognized then WHY do we have a Court of
last resort? I intend to live until the evolutional idiots
are as the missing links in Darwinian theory.


12 posted on 04/22/2005 4:52:51 AM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: PBRSTREETGANG

That was the line that struck me as incredibly stupid by someone who should be a defender of the Constitution.


17 posted on 04/22/2005 4:56:44 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: PBRSTREETGANG; MisterRepublican
This article demonstrates why O'Connor, and anyone who thinks like her, is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court, or any other court. She is an enemy of the Constitution.

The way to discover American intentions to change the Constitution is right there in the document. It's called the amendment process, and it appears in Article V. If two thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures agree, then there is a consensus and the Constitution is changed. Absent that, any Justice who seeks to change the Constitution is in violation of her/his oath of office.

Should she be impeached for applying this view in Supreme Court cases? Absolutely. But not in the foreseeable future will two-thirds of the Senate be willing to convict and remove her. As Jefferson said, the remedy of impeachment is "a scare-crow."

So, we have to wait for her to die or resign, and then replace her with a Justice willing to read and apply the Constitution.

I covered all that in my speech for the March for Justice II. That was posted on FR. Also, anyone who wants printed copies of that, please contact me by Freepmail. It comes off the press today, in a 12-panel folder that fits in a pocket or in a standard business envelope.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Double Crossing at the Rio Grande II."

28 posted on 04/22/2005 5:48:25 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: PBRSTREETGANG

"Our Constitution is one that evolves"

You are right. She should be impeached for these words. The Inalienable Rights listed in the Constitutuion are said to given by God. This does not evolve. Americans like her sow the seeds of future civil war.


33 posted on 04/22/2005 6:32:21 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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