Harriet Miers - Page 5

scaeagles · 10-04-2005, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Strict constructionism equals stagnation.

Absolutely not. This is why there is an amendment process. Why add an amendment process if they did not think the rules and mores of society would change?

If something in the Constitution does not stand up to the test of time or social reform, then it can be changed. It is not an easy process, nor should it be. This means that it is not changed easily - if it were easy, than we would have a flag burning amendment (which I oppose, btw).

But to change the meaning of the words as a justice, or to look to foreign law for interpretation, is to eliminate it altogether.

There is no living, breathing document except through the amendment process.

Nephythys · 10-04-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There is no living, breathing document except through the amendment process.

amen and AMEN!

wendybeth · 10-04-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There is no living, breathing document except through the amendment process.

There is 'living, breathing', and then there is amending to the point of hyperventilation.

Alex · 10-04-2005, 10:23 AM

I don't have any problem with the Constitution as a living document and much of that does come through intentional vagueness.

I also believe that over time the judiciary has usurped much of the authority of the legislative branch through a desire not to interpret law as it relates to the constitution but rather to provide justice and make moral decisions.

I disagree with Roe v. Wade for example, not because of what it instituted. I believe that abortion should be legal and freely available but for the Supreme Court to have created the right requires them dictating the answer to social questions rightfully handled through the democratic process.

Essentially, I think the court has increasingly decided that should is a synonym for must. This is increasingly true of the legislative branch as well, but at least they're the appropriate repository for most such decisions and can be overturned in less than a generation.

Steve: many would say that the only reason the federal government has 100% power of us is because of the Supreme Court's past complicitness in allowing it (mostly through the expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond all reasonable bounds).

I would prefer a much more small "c" conservative court. When society has so changed that the Supreme Court's rulings seem out of bounds then it will be a sign that it is time to amend it (I don't buy the "we shouldn't amend the consitution very much argument").

PanTheMan · 10-04-2005, 10:33 AM

People are comparing her to another Bush Cronie, David Souter....Remember Him? Daddy's failed pick?....lol

Alex · 10-04-2005, 10:39 AM

Well, as least she is on record as in support of full civil rights for gays.

Gemini Cricket · 10-04-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Well, as least she is on record as in support of full civil rights for gays.

I'm hoping that pans out as being true. But these days, who knows?
:shrug:

(We need a shrug smilie.)

Ghoulish Delight · 10-04-2005, 11:04 AM

Okay then, Leo, what's your explanation for the obvious intentional vagueness of the wording? I can go ahead and start digging up documentation that shows far more definitive language being kicked around by the writers, personal writings that show far stricter personal beliefs than what made it in. And yet, what we have is a very vague document.

I'm not saying I don't agree that many court rulings have gone out of bounds, both in scope and in interpretation. However I don't see the solution to that being throwing out all room for adaptability. Reign it in, yes. Discard it, hardly.

Cadaverous Pallor · 10-04-2005, 11:54 AM

There's no going back.

The Fed is big and will continue to grow. The vagueries of the Constitution were put there because of the colonists' fears of government. Yet it is these very vagueries that allow it to push its boundaries. Once a step is made it usually can't be pushed back...especially these days.

Regarding this nominee....it's a sight better than worst case scenario, so you won't hear me scream about it - until she does something awful, that is.

scaeagles · 10-04-2005, 12:02 PM

Greg (sorry if it has two "g"s - I can never remember), I have never bought into the argument that the Constitution is vague or intentionally vague.

Perhaps the Preamble - "promote the general welfare", "secure the blessings of liberty", ...... those are open to interpretation, certainly, but they are describing why the Constitution is being written.

I see very clearly written passages on the powers given to each branch, the responsibilities of the feds, the rights of states and individuals, etc. Throw in the Bill of Rights, particularly the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the limitations on the government are quite clear.

What parts do you consider vague?

I think, rather, that certain groups that don't like parts of the Constitution have set about to make them vague. For example, look at the second amendment. It clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, some say, this doesn't mean ALL the people, just the people in the well-regulated militia. Even though "the people" in all other amendments means every citizen, they claim it does not here. Thus, in this case, intentional vagueness is manufactured and not a reality.

10-04-2005, 10:23 AM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I don't have any problem with the Constitution as a living document and much of that does come through intentional vagueness. I also believe that over time the judiciary has usurped much of the authority of the legislative branch through a desire not to interpret law as it relates to the constitution but rather to provide justice and make moral decisions. I disagree with Roe v. Wade for example, not because of what it instituted. I believe that abortion should be legal and freely available but for the Supreme Court to have created the right requires them dictating the answer to social questions rightfully handled through the democratic process. Essentially, I think the court has increasingly decided that should is a synonym for must. This is increasingly true of the legislative branch as well, but at least they're the appropriate repository for most such decisions and can be overturned in less than a generation. Steve: many would say that the only reason the federal government has 100% power of us is because of the Supreme Court's past complicitness in allowing it (mostly through the expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond all reasonable bounds). I would prefer a much more small "c" conservative court. When society has so changed that the Supreme Court's rulings seem out of bounds then it will be a sign that it is time to amend it (I don't buy the "we shouldn't amend the consitution very much argument").
	Submit to Quotes

10-04-2005, 10:33 AM	#5
PanTheMan Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Somewhere between you, and just over there. Posts: 258	People are comparing her to another Bush Cronie, David Souter....Remember Him? Daddy's failed pick?....lol __________________ What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about? ....
	Submit to Quotes

10-04-2005, 10:39 AM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, as least she is on record as in support of full civil rights for gays.
	Submit to Quotes

10-04-2005, 11:04 AM	#8
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Okay then, Leo, what's your explanation for the obvious intentional vagueness of the wording? I can go ahead and start digging up documentation that shows far more definitive language being kicked around by the writers, personal writings that show far stricter personal beliefs than what made it in. And yet, what we have is a very vague document. I'm not saying I don't agree that many court rulings have gone out of bounds, both in scope and in interpretation. However I don't see the solution to that being throwing out all room for adaptability. Reign it in, yes. Discard it, hardly. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

10-04-2005, 11:54 AM	#9
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	There's no going back. The Fed is big and will continue to grow. The vagueries of the Constitution were put there because of the colonists' fears of government. Yet it is these very vagueries that allow it to push its boundaries. Once a step is made it usually can't be pushed back...especially these days. Regarding this nominee....it's a sight better than worst case scenario, so you won't hear me scream about it - until she does something awful, that is. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

10-04-2005, 12:02 PM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Greg (sorry if it has two "g"s - I can never remember), I have never bought into the argument that the Constitution is vague or intentionally vague. Perhaps the Preamble - "promote the general welfare", "secure the blessings of liberty", ...... those are open to interpretation, certainly, but they are describing why the Constitution is being written. I see very clearly written passages on the powers given to each branch, the responsibilities of the feds, the rights of states and individuals, etc. Throw in the Bill of Rights, particularly the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the limitations on the government are quite clear. What parts do you consider vague? I think, rather, that certain groups that don't like parts of the Constitution have set about to make them vague. For example, look at the second amendment. It clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, some say, this doesn't mean ALL the people, just the people in the well-regulated militia. Even though "the people" in all other amendments means every citizen, they claim it does not here. Thus, in this case, intentional vagueness is manufactured and not a reality.
	Submit to Quotes