Posted on 11/12/2013 9:34:16 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Lyle Denniston looks at a claim that interpreting an old document, like the U.S. Constitution, is a doomed attempt to apply outdated legal principles.
THE STATEMENT AT ISSUE:
“Professor Neuborne describes this dysfunctional democracy very well, but he does not give the real reason for that dysfunction – the reverence for the United States Constitution. Each of the Supreme Court’s iniquities he lists is based on the interpretation by five of nine high priests of increasingly irrelevant documents written by wealthy white men in an unimaginably different and distant world.”
...
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
One of the fundamental issues that deeply divides the nine Justices now serving on the Supreme Court is the proper way to interpret the Constitution’s meaning for today’s world. Some of the Justices believe that the key is the “original meaning” of the document – that is, as it was understood in 1787. Others believe that the document is a “living Constitution” that is adaptable to changing times and thus acquires new meaning from time to time.
No one expects that disagreement ever to be finally resolved. At the same time, all of the Justices agree that the Constitution embodies enduring principles, and that it is the duty of judges in this country to apply them. Even a sincere devotion to those principles, though, is bound to produce disagreements about their contemporary meaning.
What is often misunderstood about the process of constitutional reasoning is that the Constitution itself does not provide all of the necessary answers to any legal problem that turns on enduring principles. No document, and certainly no legal document, can always be understood by its literal meaning. Words are means of expressing ideas, and the same words can mean different things to different judges.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Keep in mind that democracy wasn’t pushed into this country until the early 1900s particularly with the Woodrow Wilson administration using his famous making the world “safe for democracy” catchphrase during WWI.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html
The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights.
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . .
The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.
Next question."
Exactly correct!
“Like this “democracy” crap.”
Right. Notice that libs support any crazy repressive regime, even the Muslim Brotherhood, as long as they can gloat “democratically elected,” especially if the election had been certified by Peanuts Carter.
I’d say the communist manifesto is also a very old document written by white men in a different world. Does this mean we can fire every left winger in Washington?
Don’t dare ask for an I.D. card! That’s just plain Racist!
I don’t give a rat’s patooty about democracy. Fidelity to the Constitution will preserve our Republic and limit it’s scope and power while defending the sovereignty of the people.
Libs have brainwashed the entire country into thinking otherwise.
"It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this.
The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."~Alexander Hamilton
Speech in New York, urging ratification of the U.S. Constitution (1788-06-21)
Please support Free Republic
click the pic
> Constitution Check: Is devotion to the Constitution
> destroying democracy?
I would certainly hope so!
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch.
In a Constitutional Republic, the wolves are limited by the Constitution and the sheep are armed.
Good Question!
-----------------------------------------------------------
And they continue to do soo.
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/15283/
Non issue. We don not live in a Democracy so there is none to destroy. We live in a Representative Republic.
Professor Neuborne is actually correct, but not for the reason he believes.
The Constitution provided for a strictly limited federal government, with everything else left to the States. It is entirely adequate, as amended, to function as intended.
The problem is that for the last 100+ years more and more people have desired a government that “runs the country” in the way European social-democratic governments do. With the parliamentary system of these countries, a party that wins an election controls both the executive and legislative branches and can quickly put into practice the platform it campaigned on. If the voters don’t like the results, they can elect another party at the next election, and it gets the chance to fully implement its policies.
Our system is specifically designed to keep this from happening. Checks and balances and all that. Fine for the limited scope of government for which it was designed, but just not adequate to “run the country.”
Which means we have just a few choices:
Amend or replace the Constitution to specifically put in place a system that is capable of efficiently “running the country.”
Ignore or “interpret” the existing Constitution so the government can function somewhat effectively at “running the country.” This is what we have done for the last 100 years, more and more as time goes by.
Return to the original intent of the Founders, with the government limited to a few specific functions that can be easily handled by the intentionally inefficient government the Constitution provides. That’s what I would prefer, but it seems a considerable majority of my fellow countrymen disagree.
Nothing can hold the Republic together more than adhering to the Constitution.
-PJ
> Democracy can run amok if it is permitted to.
It already has. The system has been gamed. Why do you think they want to grant free amnesty to illegal aliens while at the same time our Southern border is being permeated by large numbers of Muslims that are coming in through the Mexico border in large numbers posing as Mexicans because they look so similar? We under invasion by an administration that is encouraging it to retain their power.
A proof of the axiom of a sucker being born (at least) every second and good intentions paving the road. The concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" collapses the minute self-interest comes into play. The fact that Mr.s Marx & Engels have yet to be consigned to the ashcan of history convinces me that there is deviltry in this world let alone the Devil!
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.
