Bush on the Constitution

[tex]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a g*ddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a g*ddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a g*ddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a g*ddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “g*ddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a g*ddamned piece of paper.”

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

[Destino]

That has to be a spoof. (Please God let that be a joke.)

[Winslowalrob]

I agree with Bush, the Constitution gets in the way of things. Get rid of that crap.

[Joe Sick]

I saw that earlier, but didn't post it. Even I'm not sure how reputable that source is! :)

It seems to be a recurring theme that the president "blows up" when he gets news he doesn't like, though.

[pez]

I agree with Bush, the Constitution gets in the way of things. Get rid of that crap.

Get rid of the foundations of this country? Please I hope your joking! :doh:

[Winslowalrob]

I saw that earlier, but didn't post it. Even I'm not sure how reputable that source is! :)

It seems to be a recurring theme that the president "blows up" when he gets news he doesn't like, though.

All I know is that if Clinton was even RUMORED of saying that Repubs would have been up in arms calling for impeachment. The ol' double standard...

[Winslowalrob]

Get rid of the foundations of this country? Please I hope your joking! :doh:

Man, I follow the wisdom of our COMMANDER IN CHIEF. If he does not like it, I do not like it. What kind of conservative are you? Probably a defeatist lefty!

[pez]

Man, I follow the wisdom of our COMMANDER IN CHIEF. If he does not like it, I do not like it. What kind of conservative are you? Probably a defeatist lefty!

1 man should never have the capabilty of destroying the ideals that built this country, and is the foundation of our entire system. The leaders and the people have supported the constitution for hundreds of years, and the thought of 1 man deciding to pitch it into the trash makes me absolutely sick. I agree that we must support our president, but he is just a man therefore fallible (this has been proven by previous presidents) and it should not be left up to just him to change at his will.

Remember: FOR the people, BY the people and OF the people.... not just the president

[Baculus]

That was not a spoof article, but one of a serious nature. I saw it earlier, but the last time I posted something from that site, it wasn't well received. Why? Because the man from the website posts articles that do not show the President in a good light.


Man, I follow the wisdom of our COMMANDER IN CHIEF. If he does not like it, I do not like it. What kind of conservative are you? Probably a defeatist lefty!

Now, I was hoping that this was posted in humour!

[Baculus]

Incidentally, as an added note, if the President's remark is true, it shouldn't be surprising in some ways. The Constitution has been eroded over the last two decades, and it hasn't stopped under Bush. With the passing of the Patriot Act, a document that was passed in the dead of night without any members of Congress actually seeing the actual act, and now Patriot Act II which makes it very easy for any American to be a "terrorist," this shouldn't be surprising. The Constitutional state of this nation is at risk, and most folks have no idea. It is a shame.

[Skins24]

That was not a spoof article, but one of a serious nature. I saw it earlier, but the last time I posted something from that site, it wasn't well received. Why? Because the man from the website posts articles that do not show the President in a good light.
Or because of his tendacy to make stuff up. This article is a perfect example.

It actually made me laugh, it was that pathetic. :laugh: :laugh:
I mean...if you're going to do write something like that at least do a decent job. Here, I'll show what he should have said:

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a g*ddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

Last month, Republican Congressional members and leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger among liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, who are always angry about something. They have joined forces with little known conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal. A recent poll showed that the 300 million other Americans don't give "two ****s" about the Patriot Act as it has not stopped them from buying Xbox 360s and filling up their SUVs.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, to which Bush replied, "Harriet who? I don’t give a goshdarn who's elin- ale- alienaded. I’m the President Bush b***h!"

“Mr. President,” one traitor in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed in a surpisingly high tone. “It’s just a goshdarn piece of wrinkled paper! ”

I’ve talked to three people who said they were present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goshdarn wrinked piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goshdarn piece of paper” used to guarantee. To them that "goshdarn" piece of paper is also handy in making paper planes.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document. It's like 100 years old! It's not even in Times New Roman”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Green party. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if prostitution is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

Pete had no comment.

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's perfect.”

President Bush has proposed seventyteen amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and ape.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to arm bears to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street, it's more like a three-way”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen or so we're told and, as one brave and couragous aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goshdarn piece of paper.”



***
Seriously though, if there were only Republican leaders there why would they talk to this guy? And what would be the purpose of a Republican leader telling a extreme Bush hater that Bush said that?

[Destino]

I don't know man, that source looks like a left wing newsmax.

[nelms]

Capitolhillblue has a reputation of publishing "Onion" like articles, the difference being they claim that their articles aren't spoofs. If you believe this article, PM me immediately -- I have some property in Florida I'd like to sell you.

[Cdowwe]

While I dont see this being a real article, I find it funny how activist judges basically make up what they think the Consitution means, and the left never gets mad.

[Winslowalrob]

While I dont see this being a real article, I find it funny how activist judges basically make up what they think the Consitution means, and the left never gets mad.

Haha, because if we never changed the Constitution we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught. Its funny how the right complains bout changing the Constitution only when black people and women can vote, but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act).

[Cdowwe]

Haha, because if we never changed the Constitution we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught. Its funny how the right complains bout changing the Constitution only when black people and women can vote, but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act).

Yea, I have a problem with blacks and women :doh:
Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it was altered because of the PATRIOT ACT. OH thats right, it wasnt altered at all. That requires an AMENDMENT.

[Larry]

While I really suspect the authenticity of this article, (make that "really, really, really, suspect . . . ")

Is it really that much of a stretch from a man who has argued, in open court, that the US Constitution doesn't apply to the State of Texas, and that the words "commander in chief" means "authority to decide that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to a citizen, if he writes an unsigned, private, memo to himself"?

To someone who thinks that "Presidential Security" authorises him to arrest anyone who's near his motorcade route, if they're holding a sign that doesn't agree with him?

[TODD]

I'll never understand why people post articles from OBVIOUSLY biased and fabricated articles. What makes you think this guy has any regular and uncensored contact with the President's inner-circle. Gimme a f'n break.

[Teller]

I call "source." Complete and utter BS.

[Winslowalrob]

Yea, I have a problem with blacks and women :doh:
Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it was altered because of the PATRIOT ACT. OH thats right, it wasnt altered at all. That requires an AMENDMENT.

Wow, way to misread my post. Ok, IF activist judges altered the constitution to expand the application of the bill of rights to women and minorities, what is your problem with that? And the Patriot Act infringes on our Constitutional rights, see, you can make laws, have them passed, and THEN they can get reviewed based on their Constitutional merit. Hence the REVIEW of laws. You imply that because it has not been reviewed yet, it is somehow constitutionally valid. Am I getting the gist of your argument?

[nelms]

Wow, way to misread my post. Ok, IF activist judges altered the constitution to expand the application of the bill of rights to women and minorities, what is your problem with that? And the Patriot Act infringes on our Constitutional rights, see, you can make laws, have them passed, and THEN they can get reviewed based on their Constitutional merit. Hence the REVIEW of laws. You imply that because it has not been reviewed yet, it is somehow constitutionally valid. Am I getting the gist of your argument?
But, you didn't say that. You said this:

"...but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act)."

I'm sure you now can see the reasoning behind his post.

[DeanCollins]

“I don’t give a g*ddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

This is the begining of the BS, instead of "do it my way" he'd of said "what do we do now"



“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a g*ddamned piece of paper!”

Here he'd have said, "what this piece of paper will someone read it to me"

[Winslowalrob]

But, you didn't say that. You said this:

"...but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act)."

I'm sure you now can see the reasoning behind his post.

"Haha, because if we never changed the Constitution we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught. Its funny how the right complains bout changing the Constitution only when black people and women can vote, but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act)."

Ok, so I should not have said "altering" in terms of the Patriot Act, but but he did not answer anything regarding what I said. To indict all activist judges as somehow bad for the US ignores US history. Without judicial activism, "we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught." The Patriot Act thing was dumb of me to say, and not a particularly strong element of my argument.

[Cdowwe]

"Haha, because if we never changed the Constitution we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught. Its funny how the right complains bout changing the Constitution only when black people and women can vote, but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act)."

Ok, so I should not have said "altering" in terms of the Patriot Act, but but he did not answer anything regarding what I said. To indict all activist judges as somehow bad for the US ignores US history. Without judicial activism, "we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught." The Patriot Act thing was dumb of me to say, and not a particularly strong element of my argument.

Judicial activism did not give women the right to vote. That would be the population coming to terms with women voting, and the legislature they elected changing the Constitution with an amendment. So, you are wrong again.

[Winslowalrob]

Judicial activism did not give women the right to vote. That would be the population coming to terms with women voting, and the legislature they elected changing the Constitution with an amendment. So, you are wrong again.

Whoops, my bad, overstepped my boundries. What about segregation?

[dreamingwolf]

same thing. also to throw another wrench in your "hate the republicans" machine I believe it was a republican congress that passed the legislation to end segregation and a republican president who enforced it.

[Winslowalrob]

same thing. also to throw another wrench in your "hate the republicans" machine I believe it was a republican congress that passed the legislation to end segregation and a republican president who enforced it.

Haha, yeahh boiii! Thats what I'm talkin about. Keep debating with the issues and the facts, its a lot more fun this way. What about the Judicial CASES involving segregation? Or what about Judicial Activism and its entire history in the United States? Paint me a picture please, I am far more ignorant than you guys. Put up a lot of information, and maybe some value judgements about whether it was a good idea or not.

[Winslowalrob]

same thing. also to throw another wrench in your "hate the republicans" machine I believe it was a republican congress that passed the legislation to end segregation and a republican president who enforced it.

Oh yeah, when was Segregation ended and by whom? You talking about 9981?

[stevenaa]

Haha, yeahh boiii! Thats what I'm talkin about. Keep debating with the issues and the facts, its a lot more fun this way. What about the Judicial CASES involving segregation? Or what about Judicial Activism and its entire history in the United States? Paint me a picture please, I am far more ignorant than you guys. Put up a lot of information, and maybe some value judgements about whether it was a good idea or not.


Show me in the Constitution where it gurantees a Womans right to have an abortion. (do not want to debate the abortion thing, just making a point) This is an example of liberal judicial activism. The issue truly should be decided at the state level.

[Winslowalrob]

Show me in the Constitution where it gurantees a Womans right to have an abortion. (do not want to debate the abortion thing, just making a point) This is an example of liberal judicial activism. The issue truly should be decided at the state level.

Well taken. There is no explicit right to privacy. Now find me some good things about liberal judicial activism. This should be holistic, not just one issue. That is why I want multiple examples.

[tex]

This is the begining of the BS, instead of "do it my way" he'd of said "what do we do now"

Here he'd have said, "what this piece of paper will someone read it to me"

Indeed.

Lets throw out what we don't know, such as who said what and focus on what is known; the Patriot Act is an undisputable reality. Arab/Israeli conflict, Afghanistan, 9/11, Patriot Act, Iraq, Iran coming into focus, Mullah Omar and Bin Laden oddly absent from the scene. And I won’t even ask why the American taxpayer has been shackled with paying for the worlds police force.

Where is all this going?

http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2005/1208d.html

We have been given our warning.

In our search for indications of whether or not events make a trend or where events will take us, we should take note of the disparity between the amount of terrorism in the US versus how it has been used to justify war in Iraq and the ‘Patriot Act’. We should not delude ourselves that the word ‘emergency’ means anything less that that the Congress and President take unto themselves whatever powers they think are needed and the judiciary will acquiesce. True, the Constitution states: “all other powers are reserved for the people alone,” but the Constitution provides for no enforcement mechanism.

Today we have an ‘Elevated Threat Level’ that can escalate to higher levels. These emergency levels are loaded and ready to go. Congress, Judicial Branch, and Presidency have all agreed that seizure of these freedoms from the people is appropriate so where will complaints be heard? The reality is that an “emergency” occurs only when one is declared. It is a euphemism for suspension of rights. The approaching economic changes can be expected to create severe economic disruption for some groups. Some will resort to riots and the government will conveniently use this for new declarations of ‘emergency.’

In the past, the termination of an “emergency” never returned things to the way they were. Declarations of emergency; leaves residual restrictions on the rights of the people. Each ‘emergency’ lays the groundwork for seizure of rights in the future. Emergencies establish judicial precedents. As a rule, government regulations etc, do not address any conditions set by judicial precedent. The precedents set by President Lincoln to deal with the succession of the Confederate states remains in force even today. Internment of people of Japanese origin created its own precedent that remains with us today. A more recent example is that the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is working on policies whereby one will be able to buy (that is right, purchase) the right to bypass security at an airport. For one person to actually buy their way out of restrictions creates a right that people will be able to ‘purchase’. If a minor emergency turns equality of all people on its head, what can a serious emergency do? Taking an established precedent like that one back to the Supreme Court to re-evaluate is a lifelong journey. It is an impossible one in an ‘emergency’. During an emergency, the courts will not consider the situation sufficiently “mature” to warrant consideration. The case can be easily rendered moot by just the slightest change in the offending government policy. A Constitution is meaningless in the face of bad will.

Use of dictatorial power

In order that the government retains the power of money, Dr Bernanke will be responsible to deliver the economic basis for judicial precedents that will re-allocate whatever is of value in the economy. The courts have repeatedly shown they are ready to do their part. Not lost on the judiciary is that without money-power, courts would also be deprived of power. Retaining money-power is so critical that the Supreme Court ruled that seizure of private property for economic benefit to the community is allowed under our constitution. The House of Representatives built on that precedent. The House created a very handy clarification without calling it that. The House bill says that any level of government can seize whatever it wants, but that if any state allows that to happen, that state would be denied federal funds. Please note that the House of Representatives bill does not prevent such seizures. Instead it clarifies that act as legal. The denial of Federal funds is a cover story. The House will then negate the denial of federal funds provision in the next appropriations bill. This is how government maneuvers and is setting up to take “property” rights. Whether or not we like this situation is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that it exists and it is the reality with which we must deal.

Again, these are only indicators that a progression of steps is underway taking us somewhere. Looking back from some future time, 20/20 hindsight will let us see that the indicators we see today were really part of a progression of events that ultimately delivered us to some end situation. . Everyone will have his or her own personal sense of denial about how that progression will end. Denial is perhaps the most effective means by which we are blind to the obvious. Because of denial, the future will never be clear to any of us. The worst-case scenario does not have to happen if timely action is taken. But, we do need to be aware of the worst-case scenario. So, Part III provides some possible circumstances that may clear away some of the fog of denial

[altair4]

the bush family has been a plague on this country for 3 generations. It is time for them to go.

[Cdowwe]

Whoops, my bad, overstepped my boundries. What about segregation?

What about segregation? Im not real sure where you are going in this thread anymore.

[Winslowalrob]

What about segregation? Im not real sure where you are going in this thread anymore.

Brown versus Board of Education?

[Cdowwe]

Brown versus Board of Education?

I know what Brown v. Board is. You brought up segregation, I just dont know why.

[Winslowalrob]

I know what Brown v. Board is. You brought up segregation, I just dont know why.

What was Brown then? I could have sworn that judicial activism was a big part of it. What is the difference between Brown and segregation?

[nelms]

What was Brown then? I could have sworn that judicial activism was a big part of it. What is the difference between Brown and segregation?
I believe there's something called "Google" that might help you with that.

[Cdowwe]

What was Brown then? I could have sworn that judicial activism was a big part of it. What is the difference between Brown and segregation?

Brown ended legal segregation. As for the difference between Brown and segregation.

Brown= Court case
Segregation= separation of races

[Winslowalrob]

Brown ended legal segregation. As for the difference between Brown and segregation.

Brown= Court case
Segregation= separation of races

So explain why judicial activism was bad then.

[BlueTalon]

Wow, way to misread my post.
This isn't the first time you've written those words. Perhaps people wouldn't misread your posts if you wrote clearly, abstained from straw-men and hyperbole, and presented your arguments in a thoughtful, rational, lucid manner.

(Hint: you're not doing that now)

[Winslowalrob]

This isn't the first time you've written those words. Perhaps people wouldn't misread your posts if you wrote clearly, abstained from straw-men and hyperbole, and presented your arguments in a thoughtful, rational, lucid manner.

(Hint: you're not doing that now)

Sometimes people just cannot read well, and their own posts are filled with equal amounts of straw-men and hyperbole. While I am perfectly willing to take the blame for bad writing, the onus is not always on me. Read what I write, do not read one line and disregard everything else. Careful reading skills are in order. I'll admit that I have gone for a few cheap shots and quoted stuff out of context when I was particularly annoyed, but I generally do not and try to use reasoned arguments rather than a badly worded sentence. Find me lines that I am not clear about, or that I have not used logic for. The same could be said of any of the people I argue against ;).

[Thiebear]

They actually posted that as a real story? Based on a "source"?

back into pretend mode:
o.k. good enough for me. lets start the impeachment process based on him getting mad a fellow republicans during an argument over the constitution as I know from a source that the founding fathers never did.

[Cdowwe]

So explain why judicial activism was bad then.

I never said it was bad, I just said it was the judicial activist who were the ones who interpreted the Constitution as they please.

[Chief skin]

People believe it because he has a track record of deceit and smear tactics thus, people tend to believe the worst.

[Winslowalrob]

I never said it was bad, I just said it was the judicial activist who were the ones who interpreted the Constitution as they please.

How is that not implying that Judicial Activism, as an activity by Supreme Court Justices, is not a negative activity? That is what you MEAN by "the judicial activist who were the ones who interpreted the Constitution as they please" right? If you want to refine your opinion to "Judicial Activism sucks except for some cases" then by all means do so. But I get the distinct impression that you think ALL Judicial Activism is a "bad" activity, and that judges are warping the Constitution. Is this your assessment or isn't it? If it is not, then I am clearly wrong, you are in favor of Judicial Activism, or at least have a much more mixed feeling about it. You probably would admit the importance of such Judicial Activism in ending Segregation practices if you held such opinions. I cannot get a read on your opinions of Judicial Activism however.

[Cdowwe]

How is that not implying that Judicial Activism, as an activity by Supreme Court Justices, is not a negative activity? That is what you MEAN by "the judicial activist who were the ones who interpreted the Constitution as they please" right?

No, if this is what I meant, I would have said it was a negative activity.


If you want to refine your opinion to "Judicial Activism sucks except for some cases" then by all means do so.

No thanks



But I get the distinct impression that you think ALL Judicial Activism is a "bad" activity, and that judges are warping the Constitution. Is this your assessment or isn't it? If it is not, then I am clearly wrong, you are in favor of Judicial Activism, or at least have a much more mixed feeling about it.

I do think judges are warping the Constitution. They are able to interpret it as they please. It should be the Legislature that changes what the Constitution means, not the Judicial branch. I am NOT in favor of Judicial activism.


You probably would admit the importance of such Judicial Activism in ending Segregation practices if you held such opinions. I cannot get a read on your opinions of Judicial Activism however.

I am not saying I am against what Judicial Activism has accomplished...ie Segregation. I am saying it should be the Legislature that does it. While it is sad that the Legislature has to be forced by the Supreme Court to get "with the times", I do not think the unelected Supreme Court should be able to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

[Winslowalrob]

I am not saying I am against what Judicial Activism has accomplished...ie Segregation. I am saying it should be the Legislature that does it. While it is sad that the Legislature has to be forced by the Supreme Court to get "with the times", I do not think the unelected Supreme Court should be able to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

While I agree with that in principle, having to rely on the majority is also a difficult prospect. The beauty of the United States government is that it more or less walks the fine line between mob rule and oligarchy. While some thing should be left to the people, I am a strong proponent for Judicial Activism because I believe relying on educated and independent judges will net just as much justice as do the masses. I remember having a discussion with Pleaseblitz concerning the times in the past the American public has dropped the ball. There have been times when legislators have been unwilling to "do the right thing," and it is not like Judges are constantly toying with the Constitution. After all, the Constitution itself was not perfect when it was written, hence the ability to ammend it. Sometimes, though, swifter change is necessary than relying on the intelligence or goodwill of the public.

While I still think you implied it was negative on your previous posts, but that is niether here nor there. I do recognize there is a subtle distinction between favoring what Judicial Activism has accomplished and being in oppposition to the principle. I hope you can afford people the same realization of subtle arguments when they make criticisms.

[Cdowwe]

Just dont trust an 80 year old to tell me what porn is. :laugh:

[Winslowalrob]

Just dont trust an 80 year old to tell me what porn is. :laugh:

If they ever ban porn oh there is no telling what I will do!