Posted on 10/23/2001 10:00:46 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
NEW YORK -- Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a subtle jab at his conservative colleagues, said those who favor a literal interpretation of the Constitution aren't necessarily following the framers' wishes.
The men who wrote the Constitution left many important areas open to interpretation, Breyer said in a speech Monday at New York University School of Law.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
First Amendment free speech guarantees are not such an area. If Campaign finance "reform" were to restrict the right of individuals or organizations of individuals from exercising their right to speak and write freely about canidates or issues, then it would clearly be unconstitutional, wether it "promotes" democracy or not. As matter of fact, there is no mention in the consitution of democracy at all.
Well, SOMEBODY, has to beat the legislative and executive branches about the head and shoulders with the Consitutiion when they trangress.
Looked at another way, the courts are the tool that the people can use to overturn Unconstitutional acts of the other branches, without waiting up to 6 years to do it, theoretically at least. Sometimes, as with the internet Censorship business of a few years back, it actually works that way.
Even with 4th and 5th Amendment trashing the War on (Some) Drugs had not been and cannot be successfull. Not so long as demand for "drugs" exists.
What's this "we" Kimosabe? (old joke, sorry) Who seeks any gun laws? Certainly not I. Mandatory gun ownership would be permissible, under the Congress' power to provide for arming the militia. However I do not seek such a law.
Oops.. quite right of course. I guess what I should have said is that literal interpretation of that particular passage might pave the way for the types of gun laws "we" oppose.
I wouldn't stop short of calling him a traitor.
We are not a free people today because of treasonous people like him. He should be impeached.
Because the supreme court is NOT suppose to interpret the Constitution it is suppose to apply Constitutional tests to the laws written by Congress.
Why would you need to interpret the Constitution anyway? Was it written in Spanish, German, French,....? If Lack-of-Justice Breyer is unsure of any part of the Constitution, he simply needs to take the time to read the Federalist Papers.
Something tells me, he does not want to know the truth.
You might want to ask the question;
Who appointed him?
Actually, that's the umbra, the penumbra is the "gray" area caused by a non-point source of illuniation. See: Eclipses
Shadows are composed of two parts, the umbra and the penumbra. The umbra is the area of a shadowed object that isn't visible from any part of the light source. The penumbra is the area of a shadowed object that can receive some, but not all of the light. A point source light would have no penumbra, since no part of a shadowed object can receive part of the light. (from Shadows)
Civic Belief #1
The Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.
Civic Belief #2
The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.
If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?
The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.
-- Lysander Spooner; No Treason (1870)
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.