The judicial activism has grotesquely contorted the meanings of some elements of the Constitution.
It took 138-some pages of socio-legalese poooop to argue that marriage, as distilled over 10,000+ years of civilization, is in violation of the US Constitution - that is the new normal.
The Constitutuin is NOT a ‘Living Document’ reguardless of what you Progressives WISH it to be.
It is ‘The Law of the Land’ and lays out those laws in very clear and concise terms that have stood, we Conservatives believe, the test of time.
It is the Progressives such as you that have been tinkering with and undermining it since the late 1800s with a ‘what IS is’ mentality using the courts to legislate unofficial and UNCONSTITUTIONAL changes sans formal amendment proceses.
You know you cannnot undermine the Constitution any other way. ‘We the People’ won’t allow it!
Har! This ‘toon hits it spot on. And Bill, you are wrong in so many ways it boggles the mind. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. It has to be a living document; otherwise we could not change it, and we might still have slavery, to take one painfully obvious example.
The law is not as clear-cut as you seem to believe. Or the Second Amendment wouldn’t be interpreted the way it is to include non-militia-based weaponry…
If the Constitution is not a living document then it is a dead document.
What is it about 138 pages that gets peter so upset? Maybe he has never managed to read 138 pages. The very thought of that many pages makes him feel nauseated.
“It is ‘The Law of the Land’ and lays out those laws in very clear and concise terms that have stood, we Conservatives believe, the test of time.”
Which is why Conservatives want to change the 14th Amendment because it’s inconvenient to their pursuit of illegal immigrants. Maybe you should get mad at them instead.
“I don’t understand. What judge is doing these things? It IS the job of the PEOPLE, represented by Congress, to amend the Constitution.
The Constitution exists for the PEOPLE, not the people for the Constitution (or the courts).”
So you believe, fully, that if the majority of a state decided to amend the Constitution and make slavery legal again, that that should be constitutional? That if women’s suffrage (a civil right which failed the popular vote, by the way) were voted out, that that would be constitutional? Both of these would be infringements on the equal rights of citizens, much like Prop 8 was (not to mention blatantly unconstitutional, California’s constitution states “no law respecting a religion, and Prop8’s defense could come up with absolutely NO non-religious reasoning for its case). Do you believe they would be legal?
The Constitution provides for its amendment - indeed it has been so amended 27 times.
Its not easy, as it shouldn’t be!!!
As the left found it impossible to adopt the ERA-pooooop amendment, they found it easier to simply define the piece of paper as a living & breathing thing, and effect its amendments through judicial activism.
Republicans were quite proud of being the party that wrote and got passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution, until this election when they needed somebody to holler about besides the Democrats. They’d probably like to blame “anchor babies” as they call them on the Dems, but the Democrats aren’t the ones who wrote and passed the law that says anyone born in the USA is a citizen. So now, the Repuglicans want do away with the 14th Amendment that they have always been so proud of. Question is, if being born in this country doesn’t automatically make you a citizen, how will you determine who is a citizen?
And by the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th is legal in a case of the child of legal immigrants from China, way back in the 19th Century, but there has never been a case contesting the 14th Amendment in reference to a child of illegal immigrants. Maybe it’s time somebody filed one?
@petergrt: Why is it “judicial acitivism” when the courts want to protect the rights of ALL Americans to equal treatment, but not “judicial activism” when they say every nut in the country has a right to have any kind of ‘gun’ they want to buy?
An Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 until it finally passed both the House and the Senate in 1972, and that one has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states to become part of the Constitution. It has been re-introduced in every session of Congress since 1982, because there was a limitation on how long it could take to ratify the amendment. The wording is quite simple:
The complete text of the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
What do you read in those words that is threatening to you, or makes you think it’s a “liberal” plot of some kind? I don’t see anything wrong with women and men being guaranteed equal rights under the law, and I don’t see anything in that wording that says that it would change anything except ensure that men and women are treated fairly and equitably. It doesn’t change any other laws, and won’t, unless they’re in violation of the amendment.
What I don’t know is why Republicans seem to have decided equality for all citizens is a bad thing, since the Republican Party in the 1940s was the first party to include an Equal Rights amendment in the Republican Party platform.
Those who were in favor of the ERA did NOT use the courts to rewrite the Constitution or circumvent it, they got other laws passed that basicly guaranteed most things the ERA would have covered - equal pay for equal work, for example. Myself, I think it would serve all you woman-haters right if all the women in this country went on strike against men like you until the ERA was passed and ratified. It would get done in a blaze of speed like nothing ever seen in Congress before.
ERA was not adopted, in spite of the many shenanigans that the Left has employed, because it is simply not necessary, as the Constitution does not differentiates between sexes:
“1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“Several administrations, notably Cheney have tried to “alter” the Constitution, without benefit of legal amendments.”
And if they went after those guys for their breach of power then anyone could go after the guys who went after the guys who breached their power. And that is a problem within itself. That’s why you have War Criminals showing up on Fo news trying to keep the heat off themselves.
The whole argument is fundamentally a silly one.
Here’s the more important point.
Every case which comes before the supreme court is dependent on multiple inputs:
The Constitution
Evidence
Case Law
Every decision any justice or panel of judges makes in every case before them affects the body of case law. While the Constitution remains static unless amended by formal process, its understanding, and the manner in which it applies to the body of law is shifted by every single case, every single decision. It is impossible for the body of law under which we try cases to remain static, unless one ignores the concept of precedent.
Conservatives may choose to say that they want the Constitution to be understood only explicitly as written, but that is not in fact the case. They simply want the reading of the Constitution to be according to their philosophical ideals, just as Progressives do.
I would love to see a strict constructionist lawyer present a case before the Supreme Court solely on the basis of what the Constitution has to say with no other precedents. I suspect they would not get very far.
And to those who have scoffed at 138 pages being used to write the decision in the Prop 8 case - piffle. You would sniff snidely, if 3 pages were produced for the decision, that obviously there is no validity to the decision because it was not thorough. What would be a correct number of pages for the decision to take 12? 36? 1? It is a argument from authority, just as saying ‘well it’s obvious that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman is’. It bears no LOGICAL merit. It may make sense to you but no more so than a similar sentence does to a different person.
SuperGriz almost 14 years ago
The exception proves (i.e. tests) the rule.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
The judicial activism has grotesquely contorted the meanings of some elements of the Constitution.
It took 138-some pages of socio-legalese poooop to argue that marriage, as distilled over 10,000+ years of civilization, is in violation of the US Constitution - that is the new normal.
willikiii almost 14 years ago
The Constitutuin is NOT a ‘Living Document’ reguardless of what you Progressives WISH it to be.
It is ‘The Law of the Land’ and lays out those laws in very clear and concise terms that have stood, we Conservatives believe, the test of time.
It is the Progressives such as you that have been tinkering with and undermining it since the late 1800s with a ‘what IS is’ mentality using the courts to legislate unofficial and UNCONSTITUTIONAL changes sans formal amendment proceses.
You know you cannnot undermine the Constitution any other way. ‘We the People’ won’t allow it!
myming almost 14 years ago
hmm, looks like the conservatives may have a shaky base…
Kylop almost 14 years ago
…and the conservative posters embody the ‘toon.
Jim, job well done.
Simon_Jester almost 14 years ago
Ain’t Bill hilarious?
“You’ll never succeed in interpreting the Constitution as a living document, even though you’ve been doing it for more than a century.”
Motivemagus almost 14 years ago
Har! This ‘toon hits it spot on. And Bill, you are wrong in so many ways it boggles the mind. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. It has to be a living document; otherwise we could not change it, and we might still have slavery, to take one painfully obvious example. The law is not as clear-cut as you seem to believe. Or the Second Amendment wouldn’t be interpreted the way it is to include non-militia-based weaponry…
lonecat almost 14 years ago
If the Constitution is not a living document then it is a dead document.
What is it about 138 pages that gets peter so upset? Maybe he has never managed to read 138 pages. The very thought of that many pages makes him feel nauseated.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
Yes, it exists for ALL the people, not just people of one type.
Odon Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Charile you need to go back to Civics 101.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
“The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. It has to be a living document; otherwise we could not change it, …”
???
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“It is ‘The Law of the Land’ and lays out those laws in very clear and concise terms that have stood, we Conservatives believe, the test of time.”
Which is why Conservatives want to change the 14th Amendment because it’s inconvenient to their pursuit of illegal immigrants. Maybe you should get mad at them instead.“I don’t understand. What judge is doing these things? It IS the job of the PEOPLE, represented by Congress, to amend the Constitution. The Constitution exists for the PEOPLE, not the people for the Constitution (or the courts).”
So you believe, fully, that if the majority of a state decided to amend the Constitution and make slavery legal again, that that should be constitutional? That if women’s suffrage (a civil right which failed the popular vote, by the way) were voted out, that that would be constitutional? Both of these would be infringements on the equal rights of citizens, much like Prop 8 was (not to mention blatantly unconstitutional, California’s constitution states “no law respecting a religion, and Prop8’s defense could come up with absolutely NO non-religious reasoning for its case). Do you believe they would be legal?petergrt almost 14 years ago
The Constitution provides for its amendment - indeed it has been so amended 27 times.
Its not easy, as it shouldn’t be!!!
As the left found it impossible to adopt the ERA-pooooop amendment, they found it easier to simply define the piece of paper as a living & breathing thing, and effect its amendments through judicial activism.
Jester57 almost 14 years ago
Republicans were quite proud of being the party that wrote and got passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution, until this election when they needed somebody to holler about besides the Democrats. They’d probably like to blame “anchor babies” as they call them on the Dems, but the Democrats aren’t the ones who wrote and passed the law that says anyone born in the USA is a citizen. So now, the Repuglicans want do away with the 14th Amendment that they have always been so proud of. Question is, if being born in this country doesn’t automatically make you a citizen, how will you determine who is a citizen?
And by the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th is legal in a case of the child of legal immigrants from China, way back in the 19th Century, but there has never been a case contesting the 14th Amendment in reference to a child of illegal immigrants. Maybe it’s time somebody filed one?
The Old Wolf almost 14 years ago
I’m a proud supporter of the Haggis party.
Jester57 almost 14 years ago
@petergrt: Why is it “judicial acitivism” when the courts want to protect the rights of ALL Americans to equal treatment, but not “judicial activism” when they say every nut in the country has a right to have any kind of ‘gun’ they want to buy?
An Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 until it finally passed both the House and the Senate in 1972, and that one has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states to become part of the Constitution. It has been re-introduced in every session of Congress since 1982, because there was a limitation on how long it could take to ratify the amendment. The wording is quite simple:
The complete text of the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
What do you read in those words that is threatening to you, or makes you think it’s a “liberal” plot of some kind? I don’t see anything wrong with women and men being guaranteed equal rights under the law, and I don’t see anything in that wording that says that it would change anything except ensure that men and women are treated fairly and equitably. It doesn’t change any other laws, and won’t, unless they’re in violation of the amendment.
What I don’t know is why Republicans seem to have decided equality for all citizens is a bad thing, since the Republican Party in the 1940s was the first party to include an Equal Rights amendment in the Republican Party platform.
Those who were in favor of the ERA did NOT use the courts to rewrite the Constitution or circumvent it, they got other laws passed that basicly guaranteed most things the ERA would have covered - equal pay for equal work, for example. Myself, I think it would serve all you woman-haters right if all the women in this country went on strike against men like you until the ERA was passed and ratified. It would get done in a blaze of speed like nothing ever seen in Congress before.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
ERA was not adopted, in spite of the many shenanigans that the Left has employed, because it is simply not necessary, as the Constitution does not differentiates between sexes:
“1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Since Reagan, it has been the “conservatives” who’ve been out to burn the Constitution- period.
Kylop almost 14 years ago
petergrt- thank you. You provide free comedy multiple times a day
pirate227 almost 14 years ago
“The Constitutuin(sic) is NOT a ‘Living Document’ reguardless(sic) of what you Progressives WISH it to be.”
From wikipedia:
“Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. ”
Conserve that.
Odon Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“Living Document” or “altered” by process.
Call it what you will but it remains changeable by design.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Several administrations, notably Cheney have tried to “alter” the Constitution, without benefit of legal amendments. THAT is the problem.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
^ Like trying to increase the powers of the Vice Presidency.
Odon Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Charlie you get partial credit for answering part of your own question.
WarBush almost 14 years ago
“Several administrations, notably Cheney have tried to “alter” the Constitution, without benefit of legal amendments.”
And if they went after those guys for their breach of power then anyone could go after the guys who went after the guys who breached their power. And that is a problem within itself. That’s why you have War Criminals showing up on Fo news trying to keep the heat off themselves.
curiosity1 almost 14 years ago
The whole argument is fundamentally a silly one. Here’s the more important point. Every case which comes before the supreme court is dependent on multiple inputs:
The Constitution Evidence Case LawEvery decision any justice or panel of judges makes in every case before them affects the body of case law. While the Constitution remains static unless amended by formal process, its understanding, and the manner in which it applies to the body of law is shifted by every single case, every single decision. It is impossible for the body of law under which we try cases to remain static, unless one ignores the concept of precedent.
Conservatives may choose to say that they want the Constitution to be understood only explicitly as written, but that is not in fact the case. They simply want the reading of the Constitution to be according to their philosophical ideals, just as Progressives do.
I would love to see a strict constructionist lawyer present a case before the Supreme Court solely on the basis of what the Constitution has to say with no other precedents. I suspect they would not get very far.
And to those who have scoffed at 138 pages being used to write the decision in the Prop 8 case - piffle. You would sniff snidely, if 3 pages were produced for the decision, that obviously there is no validity to the decision because it was not thorough. What would be a correct number of pages for the decision to take 12? 36? 1? It is a argument from authority, just as saying ‘well it’s obvious that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman is’. It bears no LOGICAL merit. It may make sense to you but no more so than a similar sentence does to a different person.