The Constitution is Not a “Living, Breathing Document” (Fred fires back at Huck)

Fred08.com ^ | 18 Jan 2008 | Fred Thompson

[commish]

This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”

Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges “who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

Imagine my surprise when I learned that this statement actually came from my opponent, Governor Huckabee, in an interview with CNN this morning. Now I know Governor Huckabee was talking about amending the Constitution, but I don’t think he understood that he was using code words that support judicial activism.

He does not appear to understand that reliance on the notion that the Constitution is a living, breathing document is precisely the kind of wrong-headed thinking about the Constitution that gave us Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion across our nation, and Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized sodomy.

I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I am committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench if I am elected President, strict constructionists who believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be applied to cases that come before the courts today. They do NOT believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” whose meaning, constantly changing with the sifting sands of our culture, can be determined and applied by unelected judges.

I fear that this loose language about our Constitution calls into question Governor Huckabee’s appreciation and understanding of the issue of judicial activism and raises questions as to what kind of judges he would appoint were he to become President.

[MeanWestTexan]

“Fred can blow up verbal miscues without even raising a sweat....”

People forget he was an old-fashioned country prosector.

By definition, fast on feet.

[traditional1]

"an old-fashioned country prosector"

Yeah, and boy, we could use some of those right now in high places, for sure.

[eleni121]

So he was talking about the anti-abortion ammendment and the sactity of marriage amendment and Fred understands what he meant, but didn’t like the words

---

Thank you! I think some here have lost their collective minds over Fred.

Fred needs to pay more attention to telling us what he believes and less criticizing others.

[The Pack Knight]

Neither originalism nor strict constructionism are concerned with the "Framers' Intent." Different framers had different intents for different parts of the document. Furthermore, the intent of the framers is meaningless, since the Constitution isn't their document. It belongs to people of the United States who ratified it. After all, it says "We the People", not "I, James Madison."

Originalism is not concerned with the framers' intent, but rather with the original meaning of the language of the Constitution when it was ratified. That's because those are the words that were voted on and ratified. The people who voted to ratify the Constitution (without whom the Constitution would just be an historical relic rather than the supreme law of the land) couldn't read the minds of the Constitutional Convention; all they had was the text of the document in front of them.

The truth is, we can't know what the "Framers' Intent" was any more than we can really know the legislature's intent when it passed a particular law. And, as Scalia likes to point out, "'legislative intent'... is a convenient cover for judicial intent."

Scalia refers to strict constructionism as "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute." In his book "A Matter of Interpretation", he uses a then recent Supreme Court case, Smith v. United States, to illustrate this point:

The statute at issue provided for an increased jail term if, "during and in relation to... [a] drug trafficking crime," the defendant "uses... a firearm." The defendant in this case had sought to purchase a quantity of cocaine; and what he had offered to give in exchange for the cocaine was an unloaded firearm, which he showed to the drug-seller. The Court held, I regret to say, that the defendant was subject to the increased penalty, because he had "used a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime." The vote was not even close (6-3). I dissented. Now I cannot say whether my colleagues in the majority voted the way they did because they are strict-construction textualists, or because they are not textualists at all. But a proper textualist, which is to say my kind of textualist, would surely have voted to acquit. The phrase "uses a gun" fairly connoted use of a gun for what guns are normally used for, that is, as a weapon. As I put the point in my dissent, when you ask someone, "Do you use a cane?" you are not inquiring whether he has hung his grandfather's antique cane as a decoration in the hallway.

Where the strict constructionist is literalist, the textualist construes a text "reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." Originalism, which is a form of textualism, construes the Constitution to contain all that it fairly meant when it was published and ratified. It has nothing to do with the Framers' intent, because the Framers' intent is not the law; the text of the Constitution is.

[jonrick46]

I have suggested a cross-over vote in South Carolina. However, my mind just does not follow how cross-over gets into poll results. There would have to be an organized effort to respond to the poll takers over the phone in a deceptive way. I don’t think that is happening. Such polls should have built in questions to catch deceptive respondents.

One thing is for sure. If you think the Republicans have trouble figuring out which candidate they want for president, look at the DemonRATs. This Obama candidacy has thrown a real wrench in the works (pardon my pun).

[The Pack Knight]

I think you're right, though, in the field of Constitutional or statutory interpretation, "strict constructionist" has a pretty specific meaning.

Again, it's a pretty arcane subject for most, which is unfortunate, since it's extremely important to everyone.

[Theodore R.]

Do you think former Democrats are flooding the SC Republican primary? It is “open”.

[Soliton]

Thank you! I think some here have lost their collective minds over Fred. Fred needs to pay more attention to telling us what he believes and less criticizing others.

Too late for that now. It is going to be really bad here tomorrow and Sunday. As one of about 10 Huck supporters on FR, I think I'll lay low until Monday. Fred and FredHeads will have a bad day tomorrow and they will be very unpleasant.

[the anti-liberal]

I'm just not very familiar with the way polls work.

I do know that polls can be skewed in any desired direction depending on how questions are phrased.

Would you prefer to:
a. pet a cute and cuddly cat or
b. pet a smelly and dirty homeless person?

Answer - a. Therefore more people care more about animals than they do about people.

Or something like that...

[SE Mom]

http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEyMg==

If you want to read more of the real deal...go and read here. Fred’s pieces will inspire you and remind you why you are a conservative..

[commish]

Fred needs to pay more attention to telling us what he believes and less criticizing others.

So ae you truly ignorant or are you just willfully ignoring the numerous policy statement, speeches, etc that Fred has put out.

Also, did you completely miss the very plainspoken position Fred took in the statement above, or are you just repeating what you have been trained to post without actually reading what you are posting about?

[jonrick46]

If the weather is good enough, the Dems will turn out enough mischief makers to cause trouble. It is to their advantage to keep as many Republican candidates in the field as possible. Such causes the Republicans to spend up their funds fighting each other. It also taints the public image of them before they are nominated. With all of the money consumed in the primary fight, the nominee will have a huge hole to climb out of upon nomination.

We must make our minds up that whoever the nominee is after the convention, we had better pony up with dollars to defeat the DemonRATs. We will need to get an important message out to a very stupid public that would vote Communist at the drop of a hat.

[jonrick46]

In the RealClearPolitics website, I see four poll takers. They can’t all be making the same mistake in their questions.

[commish]

As one of about 10 Huck supporters on FR

I have to give credit where credit is due, and identifying yourself as one of the "about 10" liberals on this board is a very noble thing to do.

[XR7]

[DManA]

Ah HA! Here’s why Limbaugh likes him:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDQwYmI1OGQ0NWM0NTFlMDA1MGE1NGExMDRiMTc2Y2U=

[The Pack Knight]

If what you're insinuating happens, we FredHeads will survive. The Republican Party, on the other hand, might not.

To put Mike Huckabee on the ticket would be to invite the same sort of beating the GOP received in 2006.

[Texas Federalist]

If Fred isn’t the nominee, then the Republican party has left me.

There hasn't been so obvoius of a candidate since Reagan. If he isn't chosen. I go.

[the anti-liberal]

Well, it was just a thought.

I'll have to take your word for it, as I haven't paid attention to pollings. Ever, as far as I can recall.

But that said, it is interesting to see the (to me) obvious disconnect with what I've read (I don't watch TV) and the numbers you presented.

But perhaps I'm just disconnected with the world outside of the Internet.

[eleni121]

It’s good, as in better than nothing, but I prefer Huckabee’s: federal law making abortion illegal just like slavery was done away with...not state by state.

AS for your other ignorant remark-— I was not referring to all of Thompson’s positions (most of which I agree with) just this one. Next time take a breath and then post your nonsense.