If I were a Supreme Court Judge...
 

Don't like Meirs? How about me?

If I were appointed to the US Supreme Court (which is bloody unlikely me being Canadian and all), here's a brief outline of my Constitutional views on a few of the 'hot button' topics of the day.

1. Roe v. Wade is toast. I personally have no issues with abortion, but the constitutional grounds of this decision is abominable and ought to be struck down.

If abortion is to be legal in any given State, a statute ought to affirm it as such.

2. Gun Laws? Although you certainly can convince me that a citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, I'm not convinced that the 2nd Amendment supports this interpretation in its entirety.

That being said, I don't see any prohibition against State statutory perogative here.

3. Same-sex marriage? I believe it is within the jurisdiction of any given State to permit or deny such application by statute.

4. Prayer in school? In the interest of preserving both, I'm a strict separationist. Without a doubt, formal or organised prayer sessions in a public school is a violation of the spirit of the 'establishment' clause.

5. Tort Reform? Great idea! Granting political favours by selective limits on liability is not.

6. The Pledge? I don't see any direct support or prohibition against this in the Constitution. The only reasonably applicable concern seems to be the right of 'free association' which appears to be impinged.

It is to be noted that the right to remain silent is granted to the accused, but not to citizens in general?

With regard to the sub-issue of the phrase "under God", I can only opine that if politics can insert the words during the 1950's, then politics can certainly remove the words in the present day.

7. Gore v. Florida 2000 This was one of the worst cases of federal over-reach within recent memory. Without a doubt, the State of Florida had superior jurisdiction and authority, not the Supreme Court. The case should never have been heard at the Supreme Court.

Note to Congress: Please enact provisions to address this issue to provide future clarity and prevent dangerous partisan acrimony.

There you have it. Anyone else care to post their own Constitutional viewpoints? Or quibble with mine?

Because you weren't asked.

Witty.http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/cool.gif

How clever! Note to self - if reading opinion on stare-decisis is too taxing, offer a pithy testament to pettiness instead. In fact, a lot of thinking critically can be circumvented by excercising one's right not to think critically. I would ask your opinion on the constitutionality of that statement, but then I wouldn't be leaving you with the "no one asked me" response.



MM - I generally agree with your opinions here. However, I generally interpret the second ammendment to protect the rights of citizens to arm themselves inasmuch as they are able. I think that the level of destruction available today was unimagined by the framers, and thus they might well have intended for citizens to be "armed to the teeth". I personally see no reason that citizens should be allowed to own handguns, but this does not mean that I favor legislation to outlaw them and enforce their prohibition. I share the same basic philosophy when it comes to guns as I do with drugs - I think that it should never be within the purview of the governent to dictate what citizens are allowed to own, ingest, use, etc, unless they are damaging other citizens wilfully.

Have to agree with you on the rest. I am almost always in favor of leaving legislation to the states, and leaving rights in the hands of citizens, and possibly localized authorities. Federal statutes, IMO, should only be used when nothing else could possibly work (i.e. the military).

You're following the federal political policy that I've been advocating for years.


The public want's a wedge issue? Give it to states to decide. The federal government can concentrate on real issues and bother running on valid platforms that way. I hate seeing national elections getting bogged down on fetus killing and butt sex. Not that they aren't important issues, but they really won't affect the position of the US in the world...

Homosexual marriage? Give it to states. "Under God"? States rights. Abortion? States rights. Et cetera et cetera...

Hear, hear! I completely agree. Nothing is more frustrating than watching politicians pander to the lowest common denominator. Tell voters about how the opposition is going to outlaw abortion or allow gay marriage, and watch how little they care at the polls about things that affect them on a daily basis. The most important things (i.e. economic decisions, foreign policy, budget considerations, etc) are completely ignored by a large segment of the population, and more importantly, they are ignored by politicians running because they aren't devisive and edgy (and because a lot of people are too stupid to understand them).

It's maddening.

I agree with most of what Mad Michael said in the original post, with the exception of his interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I do believe it covers the rights of citizens to bear arms.

Begle and Drgoodtrips are right on as well. Many of the 'wedge' issues in question today are state's issues, not federal ones.

My elementary view is that by default, all questions of authority on an issue begin at the most basic level, which is with the individual. Clearly, issues arise that require a higher level of governing body to intervene, but there better be a damn good reason why. If individuals can't work out a problem, then leave it to the townships or municipalities. If they can't work out a problem, leave it to the county. If not the county, then the state. If not the state, then the federal government.

Many of thing issues you all have listed above, like abortion, homosexual marriage, etc., have been taken over by the federal government when they could be worked out more expediently at a more basic level of governance.

Maddening it is.

Ah my beloved devotee.http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif

No one asked you.

Glad to see that a few of you share my general approach to interpreting the US Constitution - as I understand it, all powers not explicitly delimited to the Federal government belong to the States.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I took care to word my view precisely. I stated that I don't see the 2nd Amendment as a blanket endorsement of the right to bear arms entirely. Clearly arms are required for a militia to exist.

However, one thing I will add here is that the 2nd Amendment clearly and explicitly gives the Federal government the right to regulate that militia. And if the right to bear arms is understood or interpreted under this right of a well armed militia, then the Federal government clearly has constitutional authority to regulate those same arms. It doesn't seem logical to interpret one without the other.

Militia and citizens right to bear arms are two separate issues. The writing style of the day grouped them into one sentence, but the comma separates them completely.

But the most forceful argument for the right to bear arms is not within the second amendment at all. It is within the Constitution itself, since it enumerates what powers the People grant to the Government, not what Rights the People have. Therefore the People have all rights unless specifically constrained by the text of the Constitution, or in laws created within the framework. The Bill of Rights were passed merely to placate those who wanted more assurances. The Court has consistently held this view.

The problem I have with this thread is that it tries to do too much. An adequate response to all the issues raised would take too long and expand into too many areas, and thus be too lengthy or untenable. I suggest that you take one issue and run with it, and save the rest for later.

Actually, you could interpret that phrase as a qualifier. I.E. if you can prove that a well regulated militia is necessary, THEN you can tote your guns.

Damnit! I've been working on my troll predicting device, but I predicted "no one asked me" and you offered "no one asked you".

*Goes back to make a few adjustments to the TrollFinder 4000. *

But the most forceful argument for the right to bear arms is not within the second amendment at all. It is within the Constitution itself, since it enumerates what powers the People grant to the Government, not what Rights the People have. Therefore the People have all rights unless specifically constrained by the text of the Constitution, or in laws created within the framework. The Bill of Rights were passed merely to placate those who wanted more assurances. The Court has consistently held this view. What ho? The caterpillar has emerged from his concoon of trollery after several posts and become a butterfly, with actual thoughts on the issue! And, a good point I might add - I agree with the assessment, and the general philosophy that "rights" (or priveleges) should be in place by default, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

What's even more disturbing, IMO, is that many of them were taken over by the federal government, specifically to exploit partisanship and wedge issues for individual political gain. I doubt that anyone thought "this should really be a federal issue" as much as "if I make this a federal issue, I might get elected to federal office".

I'm not sure if the point you are intending to make is that all judges have legislated from the bench but you have done so very well. To think that people who are put in a position with that kind of power are not going to let their personal feelings get involved is crazy and why do we never hear of conservatives legislating from the bench?

Indeed, one of the various sub-themes I intended to explore/expose with this thread. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

So-called 'judicial activism' is and always has been, a characteristic of the common law system - no monopolies on right or left.

Does the Constitution not specifically assert that all powers not explicitly given the Federal government reside with the States? How does that square with what you are asserting?

Given the long tradition of judicial activism, the fact that the Court has consistently held this view doesn't make it right. Politics rules, not the letter of the law.

I'm not particularly interested in any one specific policy area here. Start your own thread if you want to do that.

What is the US government and constitution if not a philosophical experimentation?

To me, it seems obvious what the prominent authors intended even if they were compelled to compromise their esoteric ideals in order to progress.

So Michael, Dr. Goodtrips, Begle1, wphelan, I take issue with states rights in some instances. Some of the major themes of this philosophical experiment is individual liberty and another is limitation of government. Does anyone disagree with that all by itself?

If you don't disagree with those two fundamental ideals, then we can press on to states rights. As I see it, states rights were a compromise not intended to completely undermine the main theme. Afterall, our predeccesors DID choose federalism, they DID, to a large extent, agree to the premise of this whacky experiment granting individual liberty. THIS, in my opinion was THE critical factor, THE ideal that set the new government apart from others - individual liberty.

So when states rights interfere with individual liberty, individual liberty usually takes precedence. The only thing that trumps individual liberty is individual liberty. That's how I see it.

If I were given the choice between you and Meirs. Pack your bags, you're moving to DC.

Okay ... who are you the bait-and-switch for?


Fun!


Though I despise legislating from the bench http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif ... I see nothing unconstitutional about Roe. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/eek.gif http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/eek.gif http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/eek.gif

Okay ... maybe that's contradictory ... ...

What I mean is, as long as the newly conceived is not recognized by the SCOTUS as a "legal" person, even though the newly conceived is most definitely a human being, then there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with including abortion is Roe's list of privacy behaviors.


You're right, it doesn't.

The Consitution is a stand-alone document, explicitly written to be that way.

The 2nd Amendment, when interpreted correctly, using only the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary, without any always-specious reference to intent or other "off-line" documents, clearly says that it's all about Congressionally sanctioned militias: what is exclusively today the state and national guard.

The 2nd Amendment in no way grants individual citizens the right to carry and use a gun.

The priviledge of carrying and using a gun can be legislated at any level, state or federal, without violating the Constitution.

Keep in mind, that gun-toting is not a right.


The Constitution cares not one way or the other. Legislation can be at either level.

However ... religions have no authority under federal separation laws to present "we own the word marriage" to the fed and Constitutionally expect to be given serious consideration.


Nope -- wrong.

The 1st Amendment makes it clear that the fed can't make religion relevant.

But religion is rightly defined as a philosophy that reflects the two tenets of 1) souls and, 2) before/after life.

There is nothing about "God" or "A Higher Power" or the like that makes a philosophy a religion, as hard as this simple fact is for most to comprehend.

Thus it is okay to simply pray to God in school ... providing Jesus or Mohammed or the like, as with specific other religion's other specific identifying reference isn't made ... even if it pisses-off atheists.

This is because God is not owned by religion.

"Jesus" and "Mohammed" are specific religious terms, etc. that are owned by religion, but God is not.

That's why "In God We Trust" is okay on money ... but why it is not okay to swear the President in on the Bible.

****

Ooops, gotta go -- my girlfriend says it's Oktoberfest party time!

I'll finish with you later.