You are here

Log in or register to post comments
JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
The Constitution and the 'Grand debate'

I would like to recommend this read to anyone who is interested in the debate between Originalists and those embracing the 'Living Constitution.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027678.php

The interesting bit, aside from the history, is the very basic question....If the Constitution is a living document for Judges to modify as desired/needed, what is the Justification for Judicial Review? If the Constitution is not the rock upon which such review is made, what rationale did the Court have for it in the first place when they invented it.

Edit...sigh...I spell check the actual post and miss type the subject line....

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'


Quote:
I would like to recommend this read to anyone who is interested in the debate between Originalists and those embracing the 'Living Constitution.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027678.php

The interesting bit, aside from the history, is the very basic question....If the Constitution is a living document for Judges to modify as desired/needed, what is the Justification for Judicial Review? If the Constitution is not the rock upon which such review is made, what rationale did the Court have for it in the first place when they invented it.

Is the Bible a "living document?"

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'


Quote:

Quote:
I would like to recommend this read to anyone who is interested in the debate between Originalists and those embracing the 'Living Constitution.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027678.php

The interesting bit, aside from the history, is the very basic question....If the Constitution is a living document for Judges to modify as desired/needed, what is the Justification for Judicial Review? If the Constitution is not the rock upon which such review is made, what rationale did the Court have for it in the first place when they invented it.

Is the Bible a "living document?"

Of course we know the Bible is dead. Doesn't take much scrolling to figure that out. Sea what I mean?

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'


Quote:
Of course we know the Bible is dead. Doesn't take much scrolling to figure that out. Sea what I mean?

It's not dead and it's not a 'book'.
The patriarchal, sexist and homophobic poison induced by the Old Testament is very much alive in the Western collective sub-conscious. Consider one instance, the still popular view of women as temptresses. As to the Bible being a book it's a collection of books and mistranslated myths dating back in part to pre semitic legend. The New Testament in part appears to hint at some historic truths but even the apostles distorted each others story telling - instance their changing and contradictory portraits of Mary Magdalene -- who was most probably Christ's wife.
Rome and others then came along and thoroughly re-wrote large sections of it as did others over the centuries. Some recent and more bizarre interpretations, such as the Jehovah's Witness version, leave even Rome for dead in fictionalization.
The greatest distortion, induced by human arrogance and the fear of uncertainty, is the claim that the entire Bible ( whichever version they imagine is the 'true' one) is the Word of God. To my way of thinking all such claims are potentially blasphemous.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'


Quote:

Quote:
Of course we know the Bible is dead. Doesn't take much scrolling to figure that out. Sea what I mean?

It's not dead and it's not a 'book'.
The patriarchal, sexist and homophobic poison induced by the Old Testament is very much alive in the Western collective sub-conscious. Consider one instance, the still popular view of women as temptresses. As to the Bible being a book it's a collection of books and mistranslated myths dating back in part to pre semitic legend. The New Testament in part appears to hint at some historic truths but even the apostles distorted each others story telling - instance their changing and contradictory portraits of Mary Magdalene -- who was most probably Christ's wife.
Rome and others then came along and thoroughly re-wrote large sections of it as did others over the centuries. Some recent and more bizarre interpretations, such as the Jehovah's Witness version, leave even Rome for dead in fictionalization.
The greatest distortion, induced by human arrogance and the fear of uncertainty, is the claim that the entire Bible ( whichever version they imagine is the 'true' one) is the Word of God. To my way of thinking all such claims are potentially blasphemous.

OK Dissily, I'll try again:

of course we know the bible is DEAD. SEA what i mean? doesn't take much SCROLLing to figure that out.

I'm sure I misspelled something, but cut me some slack, I'm a musician.
I'm lucky I write at all.

mark evans
mark evans's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 5 2010 - 4:06pm
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'


Quote:

Quote:

Is the Bible a "living document?"

That depends on your particular faith, or if your a person of no faith in a creator.

Jesus Christ is defined as the Word of God.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

verse 14 - ..and the Word was made flesh...

If you a person of faith, then Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead and is seated on the right hand of the Father is very much alive and the word is alive, ie: The word of God (Bible) is alive.

If you are a person that does not particularly subscribe to any belief system, well then yes, the Bible is a ficticious document thus, dead.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'


Quote:
Is the Bible a "living document?"

Heck if I know...I'll leave that to the religious and spend my time thinking about the Constitution and Judicial Review.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'


Quote:

Quote:
Is the Bible a "living document?"

Heck if I know...I'll leave that to the religious and spend my time thinking about the Constitution and Judicial Review.

My point was that both "texts" require we apply them in novel situations and different times than when they were written.

Originalists are just as bad and crazy as left wing liberals when they want to apply their own 'belief' system by pretending to base their opinion on the Constitution.

You can name almost any situation and people on either side of the debate can make shit up and call it "originalist" or "progressive," or any name you like.

"Originalist" is just the newest euphemism some people are using to foist dumbass ideas on the country.

Try it yourself:

Think of a social question, go to either end of the political spectrum and, if you are devious enough, you can apply "originalist" philosophy to support either side.

Interestingly, Scalia and Roberts do it in good faith, Alito does it for political payback for power, and Thomas does it because he can't think for himself.

(A buddy of mine was Clarence's college roommate and he confirms Clarence as being worse than Anita says he was.)

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'

That is not the issue raised...the issue is the lopsided logic used to try to embrace BOTH the concepts of a living Constitution and Judicial Review...

Judicial Review, as its name implies, is the idea that some body in Federal Government must exist to serve as a check/review toward laws and ideas embraced by the other branches of government. Mabury v Madison was about the Judiciary applying the rules established in the Constitution to insure those laws do not step over the protections provided in the Constitution.

If the Constitution is 'living' as in flexible enough to be changed by the legislature, then what exactly is the Judicial Review process protecting the people from, violations of the Constitution or violations of perhaps incorrect Judicial case law?

The Court ruled in an originalist manner for over 100 years but began, in the 1900's, to shift to a review of the law not against the Constitution but instead against the body of existing Judicial rulings...precedent. Precedent began to trump the clear language of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.

The flaw in that thinking was pointed out clearly a quarter century ago. Why does the opinion of a few unelected Judges trump the views of the people through their legislators? At the least they are elected and the laws vetted by voters every election.

If the review does not go to a rock solid body of thinking that is the Constitution, amendable only by the specified process, then the entire idea of Judicial Review is a sham, as it puts the body of case law above the Constitution and the People, which is most assuredly not what was intended by the Founders and would not be embraced by the public if they thought about it.

The Constitution is supposed to trump case law, not be subservient to it.

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'

I've said for a long time that the only way to fix the mess we have become as a nation is not by defeating the liberals at the ballot box, but through the persuasiveness of the conservative (libertarian or classical liberalism, if you prefer) ideology. In this respect, the Tea Party movement has been exciting to watch as it has created a climate where people are genuinely engaged and educating themselves about our founding and Constitution.

mark evans
mark evans's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 5 2010 - 4:06pm
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'


Quote:
the Tea Party movement has been exciting to watch as it has created a climate where people are genuinely engaged and educating themselves about our founding and Constitution.

As an active member of my local Tea Party, I Thank you Monty

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: The Constitution and the 'Gread debate'


Quote:

Quote:
the Tea Party movement has been exciting to watch as it has created a climate where people are genuinely engaged and educating themselves about our founding and Constitution.

As an active member of my local Tea Party, I Thank you Monty

Man, if only that were true.

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading