[PatrickHenry]

Okay, it's a vanity post. But I've been wanting to say this for a while.

[45Auto]

There is no question about it; you are right. The only problem is what to do about the near total ignoring of Constitutional limits by almost every judge currently sitting on the federal bench and almost every member of the House and Senate.

[HeadOn]

I hate to post and run, but I gotta go in 5 minutes...

Based on your defiinition, I agree whole-heartedly. However, when I (and many others) speak of Strict Construction, or Original Intent, I'm talking about abiding by the Articles and Sections you've posted.

What I mean is this: Don't read something into it that's not there, and don't ignore something that is plainly included. So - to me, you are most definitely a "Strict Constructionist"...

And yes, I've had this tagline for several days now....

[Cyber Ninja]

liberal construction with respect to our rights,

So does that mean that there is a right to abortion to be found in there?

[Non-Sequitur]

The list of powers delegated to the federal government is a complete list.

Where is the Air Force on that list of powers? The Department of Veterans Affairs? Department of State? Federal Aviation Administration? Environmental Protection Agency? The Coast Guard? The FBI? And on and on and on.

[Publius]

Please read States' Rights and the Union by Forrest McDonald. You'll find that -- going all the way back to the 1820's when the loose-versus-strict constructionist argument began -- the argument was used by those who wished to gain something from their particular interpretation of loose-versus-strict.

For example, both Webster and Calhoun started on one side of the issue and migrated to the other side as the issues of the day shifted.

This book is required reading for FReepers who wish to dive into threads about states' rights and loose-versus-strict construction.

[TheCrusader]

There is only one way to interpret the Constitution, namely, exactly the way it is written.

I know the Constitution is silent on certain issues, (like abortion), and therefore the Supreme Court must try to cull from the document whether or not something is legal or illegal. This is precisely why the qualifications for this job should entail more than just a broad knowledge of Constitutional Law. The criterion for the job must also demand none but the most honorable and moral men availabe to ensure the Constitution is upheld and preserved in all its integrity.

Unfortunately, we learn today that truth is not absolute, and that every man and woman can have their own "truth". This false belief is the self-justification and the basis of every lie, and it's the reason why the immoral liberals on the Supreme Court get away with interpreting the Constitution in a way that fits their personal agenda.

[bayourod]

But when two sides disagree on the meaning of a clause in the Constitution who decides which interpretation is correct?

For example we have some people right now who want to distort the meaning of the Constitution by claiming that the word "invasion" means migrant laborers.

Who decides?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Does a "liberal" construction of our rights include the "right" to sodomy, gay marriage, and abortion? Because if that's what you mean by liberal, this conservative wants no part of it.

[William Terrell]

I think it's also entertaining to note that the Constitution created the federal judicary where no such thing existed before.

[FReethesheeples]

Thanks for this post. I think I disagree somewhat.

It is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these realted issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.

For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:

I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))

and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.

As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.

He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

So the Supreme Court Justices should simply be arrested when they rule contrary to the Constitution's plain language?

Works for me.

[musanon]

PatrickHenry wrote:

" -- To me, it seems very simple. The Constitution, by its terms, and by the oath required of all office holders (including judges) is the "supreme law of the land," and is unquestionably binding on the judiciary. The Constitution contains its own rules of construction, which are also binding on the judiciary:

1. The list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not to be construed as a complete list.

2. The list of powers delegated to the federal government is a complete list.

In other words, it's not a matter of personal choice. All judges are bound by oath to use liberal construction with respect to our rights, and strict construction when it comes to the government's powers. Anyone appointed to the judiciary should readily agree with this, or he's unqualified to hold office

---

I agree, it is just that simple. - With one addition to your numbered list:

1. The list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not to be construed as a complete list.

2. The list of powers delegated to the federal government is a complete list.

3. The powers prohibited by it to the States is a complete list, a list that includes all Amendments.


As to the term "liberal construction", -- Author R. Barnett has, imo, a more definitive wording:

All judges are bound by oath to use liberal construction ["a presumption of liberty"] with respect to our rights, and strict construction when it comes to the government's powers. [At any level] .
---

[PhilipFreneau]

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "On every question of construction [of the Constution], carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed".

Remember this quote every time some leftist liar claims the Democratic Party is the party of Jefferson.

[planekT]

BTTT