Do you have a newsletter to sign up to?…

I don’t see how one can advocate total freedom to own any weapon that exists but if you’re going to focus on 5 words “the right to bear arms” there’s little argument.

No one is arguing that anyone has the right to nuclear arms, only that the government cannot disarm the people altogether.

You love Scalia, fine. I think he’s one of the judges who has made it HARDER for “the people” to get justice in this country. Who has put the “rights” of corporations ahead of the people and other things.

I do love Scalia, although I prefer Roberts. Nonetheless, if I may be so bold, I suspect you think Scalia has made it “harder for ‘the people’ to get justice” because you have a skewed idea of what justice is. Justice is not favoring the little guy over the big guy. Justice is not favoring whichever side pulls at your heartstrings more. Justice is applying the law as it is written. And like it or not, often the law is on the side of “big, evil,” corporations. And when it is, Justice requires finding in their favor. If the law is wrong, change the law — but change it democratically. If you empower unelected judges to change the law because they don’t agree that the law as written is just, then you cease to live in freedom.

I get my back up when folks say how conservatives are better at sticking to the original concepts when it is a conservative administration that has and will continue until the last day to try and bypass the checks and balances that exist.

I’m sorry, but thats simply not true. You are being misled by Democrats who want want you to believe that because they desperately want to get back in power. And here is the proof:

1. In every single instance, the administration has complied with all court rulings, even when they disagreed with them. That is not bypassing checks and balances, that is yielding to them.

2. Are you aware (I am willing to bet you are not) that in the recent ruling on illegal enemy detainees, that the Bush administration’s policy was following long-settled Supreme Court precedent? A precedent that the liberals on the court had to overturn in order to reach their outrageous decision? What happened to all that talk about the importance of stare decisis(let the decision stand)??? In both Roberts and Alito’s confirmation hearings we were ceaselessly battered with the proclamation that precedent must never be overturned, especially “super” or long-standing precedent. And yet the Bush administration has been smeared as disobeying the law, and, as you say, of trying to bypass checks and balances. And yet here they are, complying with a decision that they disagree with and that overturns long held precedent.

3) and finally, are you aware that the President’s sole powers as Commander in Chief are bestowed by the Constitution, and that Congress can no more take away his powers in this area by writing a law, than he could take away their constitutionally mandated powers by writing an executive order. And yet Democrats have been doing exactly that/ It is Democrats that have been trying to usurp powers that the Constitution grants to the executive.

You have a very misinformed and erroneous opinion of the power-plays that have been taking place and who it is that has been behaving extra-constitutionally.

The “strict constructionist” (conservative) justice finds the basis of his rulings in the Constitution and his written opinion spells out how he reached his conclusion, based on the Constitution.

The “loose constructionist” (liberal) justice finds “guidance” in the Constitution or even the laws and customs of other lands to reach his desired conclusion.

The Congress writes the laws. The people can make themselves heard. The Constitution can be amended. These are the tools of a true republic. The legislature writes the laws, the executive carries out and enforces the laws. The Judiciary settles disputes arising under the laws. It is a fairly simple concept. Except, liberals are more and more depending on the courts to create law.

Too many liberals are looking at the courts as a short cut around the obligation of making your case and getting the people behind you in a free and open system of representative government. The extent to which liberals are ignorant of the harm they are doing to the system of republican government is alarming.

“The constitution is very clearly written and requires almost zero “interpretation”, it requires only application”

Exactly AE, I have misused the word interpret in place of apply. To me that application must be tempered by modern circumstance. On the topic of guns, I don’t see how one can advocate total freedom to own any weapon that exists but if you’re going to focus on 5 words “the right to bear arms” there’s little argument.

You love Scalia, fine. I think he’s one of the judges who has made it HARDER for “the people” to get justice in this country. Who has put the “rights” of corporations ahead of the people and other things. Of course I have to be honest my distaste of him probably comes more from the fact that every word I have ever seen him utter has made me want to slap the smarmy bitch silly.

Anyway, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me and most of you have stated your case quite well. I think we are closer than it seems but the way I write things doesn’t always clearly state what I’m thinking. Whatever, I agree that the Constitution has stood the test of time and will always need to be the basis of our gov’t for the USA to survive. I get my back up when folks say how conservatives are better at sticking to the original concepts when it is a conservative administration that has and will continue until the last day to try and bypass the checks and balances that exist. I think “the people” need to pay a lot more attention to who the are voting into office or the day will come when the Constitution and the justice system will be only a fond memory. And that threat comes from both side.

Ford (R) –> Justice Stevens (1975)
Reagan (R) –> Justices O’Connor (1981) and Kennedy (1988)
G.H.W. Bush (R) –> Justice Souter (1990)

That’s two of the current big libs and the swing vote, his Imperial Majesty Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, all nominated by Republicans.

With a minimal amount of research you are once again proven wrong Dave.

The people who should be nominated to the courts are those noble enough to acknowledge their beliefs and honest enough to recognize when the plain language of the Constitution does not support those beliefs and rule accordingly. More often than not it is the conservative Justices that fit this mold. The ones who will dig desperately for to find support for their own personal biases within “penumbras of emanations” are the ones to be avoided, whether they come from the left or the right, although they are more often of the left.

The Constitution is a legal contract. Nothing more, nothing less. The only reason we exist as a country is because our forebearers hammered out a contract that the states could agree on. Have you ever heard of a “living, breathing” mortgage or business contract where the parties can just change how they “interpret” the contract? No, of course not. Legal contracts don’t work that way.

Words have meanings. The constitution is very clearly written and requires almost zero “interpretation”, it requires only application. And when the Constitution does require interpretation, it is very easy, through the writings of our Founders such as the Federalist papers, etc, to figure out precisely what they meant.

IF circumstances arise where we think modern life necessitates a changes to the constitution, then the constitution has an amendment process for changing it. Changing the Constitution by the Amendment process is the ONLY way we can change the meaning and still call ourselves a representative democracy. What liberal justices love to do is circumvent that amendment process and substitute their own policy preferences for that of the elected branches. Which is, of course, is tyranny, antithetical to everything this government of the people, by the people, and for the people stands for.

If any of the founders suspected that a group of unelected elites would change the contract they all worked so hard to make agreeable to all the states with the stroke of a pen, they never would have ratified it.

A “living breathing” Constitution would be just as ridiculous as a lving breathing business contract. It would be meaningless. It would mean only what the people in power want it to mean. Which is precisely why liberals love the concept. It allows them to force their policy on a public that won’t approve it at the ballot box. Conservatives understand that if we are to remain a free country, if we are to remain self-goverened, the constitution must mean exactly what it says, and must ONLY be changed by the people and their elected representatives.

If so then why not just have one judge, the almighty Scalia,

That would be HOT since he is one of the four justices who understand that the PEOPLE make the laws, the PEOPLE agreed to the Contitution, and the PEOPLE, not judges, are the only ones who can change it. And if you would read your constitution, you’d also find it would be entirely Constitutional. The Constitution calls for a Supreme Court, it leaves the number of justices, as well as the number and make up of lower courts, to the congress.

If 9 Communists got appointed that would likely mean that the President support communism and enough of the legislatore do also in order to confirm them. In that case I would say that the Constitution has probably already been given up as a guide to how to run the country.

I am not advocating judges ruling based on their political beliefs I am saying that it is virtually impossible for them not to. And I ask again, if political beliefs don’t enter into it then the best person for the job should be nominated no matter where they stand on the political spectrum. How often has that happened in the history of this country? Bush chose people that would appease his conservative base and every other President who had the chance to nominate someone has done the same, in my opinion. I welcome any examples (true ones) that will prove me wrong.

I’m against group politics, that much should be clear from my limited comments here. As for whatever reason my would-be assaulter would have or not as he approaches in his attack, I really don’t give a s@*t what it is… The absolute truth is that I’m tappin’ that sumb%&th twice in center mass, then putting a security round in his eye socket - and the issue of where I choose to stick my virile member has absolutely nothing to do with that truth.

Every single person (person=judge in this construct) will be influenced by their political views. There is no way humanly possible not to be. Yes they must “rule ON THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW. Period.” But that will be subject to the way they think. Period.

My reading of this is that Dave is telling us that judges must rule on the Constitution and the law, but they will rule according to their political views. He emphasizes the point by writing the one word sentence: “Period.”

Dave scolds Bruce that:

It’s beyond stupid to say that the Constitution should be read in the context in which it was written.

Let’s forget that you must be beyond stupid if you disagree with this definitive statement.

Perhaps some folks do not understand what the word “context” means. The Constitution can not be read in any other way than in the context in which it was written.

I will not put words in Dave’s mouth, but perhaps there is some confusion here over the age old debate of “original intent.” There are some weasel words in the Constitution such as “due process” and “cruel and unusual” and “good behavior” and “probable cause.” They continue to cause debate and context is not really helpful, so there is a reason to examine “original intent.”

The Constitution says nothing whatsoever about “the pursuit of happiness” and it makes no mention of our economic system. But, am I to believe that if 9 Communists get appointed to the Supreme Court that they get to rule according to their extreme socialist political whims?

Enough of this. I have been overexposed to pseudo-intellectualism in underthinking and misunderstanding the brilliance of our Constitutional form of government and the ingenious checks and balances that have allowed us to pretty much ignore it.

As Franklin reportedly said when asked what kind of government had been created: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Judges ruling on the basis of political bias is sure death to our republic.

There’s a group of people who would gladly swap all their rights for “free” health care and/or a piece of paper from a government bureaucracy validating their same-sex living arrangement as a marriage.

So, without this Right, just this question to the “Living Document” supporters:
How do you intend to keep any Rights if you are willing to give up that which allows you to protect those Rights?