Posted on 03/15/2005 10:20:51 AM PST by tahiti
I am listening to the Rush Limbaugh show at this very moment.
I am having quite a bit of difficulty reconciling Rush Limbaugh's remarks about judges imposing their morality and/or personal preferences on the rest of the citizenry as result of their constitutional decisions.
Yes, there are decisions that have been made based on a personal preference of a judge.
Most recently the Supreme Court decision to prohibit convicted death row felons under 18 years of age from being executed.
Original meaning of Amendment VIII, "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," could never be interpreted to prohibit convicted felon under the age of 18 from executed without inserting an arbitrary personal preference gleened from what the "rest of the world" does.
However, Rush Limbaugh is advocating a tyranny of the majority, in a sense, through his advocation of enacting laws passed by a poplulist legislature, which would be nothing less than a consensus of morality and/or personal preferences of a group of people versus the morality or personal preferences of single judge.
The constitutions, either federal or state, are meant to limit government power and protect the individual rights of all citizens.
For example, Mr. Limbaugh, your current legal battle with the state of Florida over your use of pain killing drugs may be analyze from a constitutional perspective of original meaning.
What individual right is more fundamental than an individual, free citizen, deciding how he or she shall treat their pain?
How and where does any government entity, constitutionally exert their power to prohibit an individual from determing how much pain killer they need to consume to satisfy the discomfort of their personal pain?
And in fact, the federal constitution, the federal Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges, guarantees that right to make such a decision.
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."
Again, the constitution is meant to "limit" the power of government and the tyranny of the majority from imposing the majorities morality and/or personal preferences on an individual.
Is it not the basis of liberty, the basis of acting like a free citizen, living in a free country, to make the individual decision on what and how much an individual shall consume of a chemical or food for medicinal reasons or just plain pleasure?
Is that not a right "retained by the people?"
Without some type of "judicial" review of tyrannical laws that violate the constitution(s), how do we prevent the trampling of guaranteed rights by the poplulist, personal preference, morality driven majority? (bear arms, search and seizures, speech, religion, etc., for example)
Those citizens who are of the Christian faith, what protection of your religiion will you have if and when Muslims are the majority in the U.S., if their is no judicial review to help protect your right to a Christian religion and Muslism being imposed in your life?
The proper and constitutional way for the majority to have their will enacted is to "amend" the constitution, not to pressure legislators to enact unconstitutional laws.
When laws can deny and disparage rights, the constitutional will be rendered useless and the constitution will mean only what the majority wants, stated through their legislators and enacted laws.
Enacted laws are below the covenants of constitution(s)in the hierchacy of the rule of law, if not then there is no need for a constitution.
Yea, that is why slavery and women not being able to vote was, at one time, the "right thing."
Constitutional amendments, not laws, make the necessary changes, reflecting the values of the citizenry under the "rules" of limit government and protectection of rights both enumerated and unenumerated.
And what is to stop the mOOSlims from saying the same about a "higher" morality? There are too many stupid people in this country who would say "well, technically Allah is mentioned in the country's founding documents" when in fact, he isn't, bc if you take Christ out of the equation, Jehovah as envisioned by the Founders ceases to exist. Just hoping they never get sufficient numbers in Congress to outmaneuver us and re-interpret law the way *they* see fit.
Denying Islam is like denying terrorist rights, not religious rights.
God how I despise Libbies. Their constant pro-porn, pro-prostitution, pro-abortion, pro-weed venom is sickening.
Retch!!!
With respect to an amendment to the Constitution I do mean a presidential executive order. States would also enact similar laws or amendments as appropriate. The President and Congress could vacate Federal or Supreme Court decisions. State legislatures could vacate lower court decisions.
Shalom.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The founding fathers made it very clear they DID NOT want International law governing the Constitution. They wanted majority rule and they sure as heck didn't want judges imposing their own ideas of public policy n the res of us.
Do you really expect us to believe that our founders wanted the Constitution to be treated as a "living document"?
Whether you like me saying it or not Rush is right and YOU are wrong. I know a lot more about this than you think I do and I'm not interested in any lectures from you or your fellow "Constitution is a living document" afficindos.
It would be so nice to see Congress exercise their power to control the purse strings of the judiciary. It's my memory that the SCOTUS has only had their own quarters for a relatively short period of time; until 100 years ago (my memory may be faulty) they had quarters in the basement of the Capital building.
Wouldn't it be sweet to cut their budget so they were only able to hear 2-3 cases a year....
One can dream I guess.
6 - "A judges only role is to interpret what the constitution says, not what the judge wants it to say."
Very funny. Thanks for the wakeup laugh.
I do what I can
There is no disagreement there. I do not know how you deduced that I support such thinking. Or for that matter "a living document" philosophy.
If you re-read my original post, I said it was wrong for the Suprmeme Court to use interntional law and philosophy when interpreting laws against the Constitution.
I was questioning Rush Limbaugh's remarks concering judicial review of majority rule enacted laws, that may violate the Constitution.
Rush Limbaugh was postulating that he did not like the fact that at the beginning of a judicial review, one judge can overrule the majority.
Well, I will ask Rush Limbaugh then, why did you not oppose judicial review of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act?
The law was supposedly enacted by duly elected legislators, representing the will of the people?
If I recall, he like me, was hoping the law would be found unconstitutional, which, he like me, believe that when the Constitution is interpreted corredtly, from an "original meaning" and "presumption of liberty" point of view, the McCain-Fiengold law is unconstitutional.
Just be consistent Rush.
Can someone shut this arrogant self-centered a-hole up. Just wait until some 15 year old moron rapes and murders his wife or daughter. Judicial perspective on underage
mutants will fly out the window!
I believe Rush did argue for the Supreme Courtto take a look at McCain-Feingold and they did.
The problem is the courts chose to over look the first amendment and find the law to be unconstitutional.
I thought it was a bad move for the President to sign it because I think we all knew at that point he wasn't going to get the desired result he wanted.
This is why I came out in support of Jim Robinson's march to the Supreme Court. Because our courts have chosen to allow International law to take precedence over the Constitution. Something to which the founding fathers never intended in the first place.
We can't allow judges to just throw away the Constiotution just becasue they don't find it to their liking. We can't allow judges to just simply go and impose their own ideas on public policy becasue if we do, ths nation is going to end up becoming a third world country. I don't think you or I would want that to happen.
If it weren't for majority rule, John Kerry would be President. In that case web sites like FR would be shut down and the homeland security would be coming after people like myself.
We should be thankful for Majority rule, not upset.
I do not understand how you think that I support the Supreme Court's decision that executing convicted felons under 18 years of age is unconstitutional and violates Amendment VIII, as they stated, from what I have posted at this forum?
I actually have advocated and support the opposite point of view: Execute the monsters.
Executions do not violate Amendment VIII, as any "original meaning" constitutionalist would know.
Agreed.
Impeachment of judges and electing legislators and presidents who will fill judgeships with individuals who will interpret the constitutionality of laws based on the "original meaning" are our remedies.
Supposedly that is why we have a Republican Senate, do "advise and consent the President's judge nominees.
That is why the Democrats are having a fit right now.
"We should be thankful for Majority rule, not upset."
For elections yes, but not for lawmaking. That is why our founding fathers set up our government as a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
For example, when the Muslims become the majority in this country, in the future, will you then support their "majority rule" laws that prohibit women from voting, in violation of Amendment 19? (Muslims think of woman as second class humans)
Or when the Muslims outlaw Christianity, in clear violation of Amendment I?
What do you think of majority rule now?
Actually, the author's got it backwards. The Constitution was never meant to "limit" what government can do. Instead, it specified exactly what government was allowed to do!
Enumerated within the Constitution is a list of those things that the government was allowed to do, and how it was to do it. Put simply, "if it's not in the Constitution, government's got no business doing it!"
On the other hand, the Bill of Rights, i.e. Amendments to the Constitution, are added protections against government overextending its reach. And that's where the 9th and 10th Amendments become important. In fact, they were added because there were a number of objections to a "Bill of Rights," since some might infer that since certain rights are enumerated, these are the only rights retained by the states, or the people.
Mark
Majority rule means the people, not the judges decide who our representatives are.
If it weren't for majority rule the judges not we the people would be the ones deciding who our elected officials are.
37- "It seems to me you are confused by a few things. The Federal Constitution IS supposed to be one of "limited" scope, but the State Constitutions are NOT. The Federal Constitution was limited and well defined, but all other powers that you said are "retained by the people" are the venue of the many States. The "people" ARE the States."
One hell of a good point. Thank you. Not all of us seem to be getting it. However, IMO, based on years of haphazard listening, Rush does get it.
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.