"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification." --Supreme Court "Justice" Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be 'living'? Depending on 'evolving standards,' maybe my two pair could beat your flush." --Walter Williams
Gotta love Walter Williams. He is one of the very few opinion page artists who understands both economics and politics. He's of course talking here about those who would seek to change the constitution based on various "alternate interpretations" of the its meanings. The plain language of the constitution leaves little room for that, so anarchists float the idea that the Constitution was meant to change with the times. It's certainly a flexible enough document, which is how we got the Bill of Rights added to it. It's when you realize that changes require thoughtful discussion and a 3/4ths majority, that these people get impatient, and try to change it in fly-by-night courtrooms all over the country.
Now we learn that Darth Bader Ginsburg and her free-wheeling associates think law settled outside this country's borders, from places that do not have the protection of the US Constitution is somehow relevant. Great. Back to the one world society of Woodrow Wilson. Don't let us be dragged down into that morass. We already happen to have the best constitution on the planet and the most complete spectrum of case law to work from. If it comes up somewhere else (like East Timor or New Guinea), it has no bearing on our situation, because it was not reviewed in the context of U.S. constitutionality. We must ask our representatives to approve only those judges who understand, honor, and pledge to protect the constitution.
The new judicial battle is just getting underway. I suspect that, regardless of how it turns out, we are not likely to have a majority of constitutionalists on those benches. Let's hope we get all we can in the right places.
4 comments:
Look, if you put Justice Ginsburg's title inside quotation marks--as if she were not every bit as legitimate as Clarence Thomas--then you're throwing bombs rather than inviting discourse, and there's no point in further comment.
Fair enough. It just seemed a little incongruous to associate justicial legitimacy with that particular quote.
Okay, so is it ever appropriate to transpose a cognitive resource from one domain to another?
Do we, for example, have trouble with Christians extrapolating what they think Jesus would or should have said about such matters as homosexuality or abortion, given that these topics are nowhere addressed in any of the canonical gospels? Isn't that an "alternate interpretation" of the gospels' all-too-apparent meaning?
But if that is defensible, then it must be just as defensible to look at the Constitution through the prism of everything we know and understand. Right?
In the context of religion, everybody gets their own shot at interpreting it. Since God reveals only a little of Himself in each passing day, all of His meaning is not clear at every step. It's not an interpretation, by the way, to recognize that the bible teaches against homosexuality. See for example http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm .
A constitution is written by men, and with a clear and concise purpose. Included in this document is the means by which its terms and particulars are to be changed. I believe that anyone who does not wish to abide by this particular constitution should go off and design a better one in some other country.
Post a Comment