Thread: Justice Ginsburg causes storm dissing the Constitution while abroad

Originally Posted by American

That's all well and good, but he also knew there is a specific process that must be followed, do you?.

Yes, he called for regular revolutions, which are not spelled out in the constitution

The U.S. constitution is a very good founding document, as it contains the ability to essentially change itself, over time, by using the amendment process. Sadly that has now been overlooked and congress, with the blind (or creative) eyes of the SCOTUS, has streached its meaning grossly, and largely without any need for formal amendment(s).

Originally Posted by prrriiide

Y'all do realize that the Constitution explicitly protects anything Ginsberg might say about it under the 1st Amendment, don't you?

What say you, righty? Does Ginsberg have the right to say anything she damned well pleases about the Constitution or not? I want to hear you say it. I want to see you defend that right to disparage the Constitution if she wants (not that she did). Because if you won't defend that right - that which you utterly despise, you are no believer in the Constitution in the first place.

Originally Posted by prrriiide

Does she, or does she not have the right to say whatever the hell she wants about the Constitution?

Seems like a reasonable question to me,I wonder why all the conservatives/right-wingers on this forum seem to be avoiding this thread for the past 2 weeks like it was the plague?

I'm not a right-winger but ill take a stab at answering the question directly.

Ahem..While I don't agree with what Justice Ginsberg said,I fully recognize her right state her opinion.

Wow,that wasn't hard at all.

Originally Posted by Verthaine

Seems like a reasonable question to me,I wonder why all the conservatives/right-wingers on this forum seem to be avoiding this thread for the past 2 weeks like it was the plague?

I'm not a right-winger but ill take a stab at answering the question directly.

Ahem..While I don't agree with what Justice Ginsberg said,I fully recognize her right state her opinion.

Wow,that wasn't hard at all.

So even though the judge says publically that they don't like the law, you would trust that judge, with your life, liberty and persuit of happiness at stake, to faithfully uphold it (to the letter) anyway? I think that is the main point of many of the "conservative's" objections.

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

So even though the judge says publically that they don't like the law, you would trust that judge, with your life, liberty and persuit of happiness at stake, to faithfully uphold it (to the letter) anyway? I think that is the main point of many of the "conservative's" objections.

An opinion is not the same as an action.Has ginsberg shown that she is above the law? Maybe we should leave things like "judging" to impartial robots who have no problem obeying the letter of the law.Nah,I'll take my chances with humans.

And I noticed you avoided answering the question I initially answered yourself.

I love this non-issue. It gives people a reason to find whatever they want in the issue and try to make it a big deal.

The truth of the matter is that Justice Ginsberg is providing PRACTICAL advice to the framers of the new Egyptian Constitution. She didn't say don't use the US Constitution, she said don't copy it. And it makes sense. There have been amendments to the Constitution and it was written two hundred years ago. That makes it difficult to be applied verbatim due to the changes in society.

Without regard to political affiliation, we should be able to agree that first and foremost the document should be FUNCTIONAL.