Tweet
Another in the saga of right wing conservatives (who theoretically believe in individual rights and liberties) dilegently looking after your civil rights...(I certainly feel more secure...)
Judge Anthony Scalia - a darling of the far right - thinks the Constitution should be taken only as intended by the framers - guess they wanted the death penalty for children eh?
Scalia believes that (appointed) judges who attempt to apply morals/values what have you of the day are taking decisions away from the electorate - however as much as I worry about judges making (interpreting) law as it were - I worry as much about Congress making (bad) law! (as influenced by special interests etc who don't have the good of the majority of us in mind at all...) - and that is why checks and balances have been written into the constitution - no?
A nice site that discusses the opposing views of Judical constitutional interpretation:
I for one cannot see how we could manage if we had to rely on entirely the framers intent (anyway there are specific and general provisions - and some of the specific have certainly been seen as problamatic and in need of adjustment - while the general - well they are supposed to by applied (via interpretation) to the situations at hand/of the day - IMO. If we kept to only "original intent" then -of course - we would still have slaves, voting only if one owned property (and was a man) and so on and so forth - OK - so we amaended the constitution for some of these things - but how often is that done....to me there is a balance required and interpretation is a part of this.
related issues: literal interpretation and sodomy laws -
Constitution as reflecting a Christian view (decidedly not) -
etc
Judge Anthony Scalia - a darling of the far right - thinks the Constitution should be taken only as intended by the framers - guess they wanted the death penalty for children eh?
Scalia believes that (appointed) judges who attempt to apply morals/values what have you of the day are taking decisions away from the electorate - however as much as I worry about judges making (interpreting) law as it were - I worry as much about Congress making (bad) law! (as influenced by special interests etc who don't have the good of the majority of us in mind at all...) - and that is why checks and balances have been written into the constitution - no?
A nice site that discusses the opposing views of Judical constitutional interpretation:
I for one cannot see how we could manage if we had to rely on entirely the framers intent (anyway there are specific and general provisions - and some of the specific have certainly been seen as problamatic and in need of adjustment - while the general - well they are supposed to by applied (via interpretation) to the situations at hand/of the day - IMO. If we kept to only "original intent" then -of course - we would still have slaves, voting only if one owned property (and was a man) and so on and so forth - OK - so we amaended the constitution for some of these things - but how often is that done....to me there is a balance required and interpretation is a part of this.
related issues: literal interpretation and sodomy laws -
Constitution as reflecting a Christian view (decidedly not) -
etc