• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama 9th Circuit Nominee: Constitution Must Adapt to Changes in the World

Indeed, but the line between judicial activism and judicial review is incredibly thin and perhaps even transparent. There will always be two arguments in which people make a very convincing case that their side is supported by what the founder's envisioned, whether it is from a broad outcome perspective or a narrow process perspective and it will ultimately be up to the particular bias of the judge which way it goes.

Are you trying to tell us our founders envisioned decisions being ultimately decided by particular biases of particular judges?:shock:

Cause, I'll tell you're wrong there. Not even close.

What in the world.....how does......nevermind.
 
Judicial review is the idea that an independent judiciary has the authority to review the acts of the legislature and determine if they comply with the Constitution. This is a theory of governance born out of the concept of separation of powers.

The idea of the living Constitution is that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time and that the Judiciary should take it upon itself to divine those social changes and adapt the meaning of the Constitution accordingly. This is a theory of constitutional interpretation.

Again, they are entirely distinct concepts.

that is extremely well put

even the proficient prof never contemplated that particular point

with appreciation, cliff
 
Are you trying to tell us our founders envisioned decisions being ultimately decided by particular biases of particular judges?:shock:

Cause, I'll tell you're wrong there. Not even close.

What in the world.....how does......nevermind.

No, what I am saying is that it is an imperfect system because it is made of imperfect people. The way the system should ideally be run is not how it has been ran since 1803. The moment that the courts obtained the power of judicial review, they stepped outside of what the founders originally intended by inadvertently turning the Constitution into a living document due to the inevitable incorporation of their own cognitive biases.
 
obama is a radical extremist

his ludicrous conception that he can change iran by talking to its leaders can fairly be described as a radical alteration of existing us foreign policy

his bizarre desire to try ksm before some lance ito in downtown manhattan is beyond radical, it's wild eyed

his cap and trade which would tax pretty heavily pretty much all forms of energy, both its production and consumption, in the middle of a depression---if that's not radical, it's at least extreme

his czars---the truther, the racist, the forced sterilization guy, the fella who wants to let fido sue you, the safe schools guy who gives you a condom and teaches you unsafe practices at tufts university...

1.6 trillion dollars of debt is such a lot of money it might fairly be called extreme

his belief that he can convert to reasonableness islamic jihad thru the force of his charisma is, well, weird is what it is

his bailouts and takeovers of banks and cars and insurance

he once floated the idea of getting his greedy fingers on individual retirement accounts, one of the few resources of worth remaining in this bankrupt country

his 3.8 trillion dollar budget with the 1.6 trillion dollar debt, some 13% of gdp, actually limits the home interest mortgage deduction and does away with writeoffs for charitable contributions---positively unamerican

his apologizing at every turn overseas, bowing to four foot tall potentates---unprecedented, to say the least

his health care, my goodness, his health care...

why do you think they can't get it passed thru their own caucus?

i could go on, pretty much everything he does

obama is a radical extremist
 
No, what I am saying is that it is an imperfect system because it is made of imperfect people. The way the system should ideally be run is not how it has been ran since 1803. The moment that the courts obtained the power of judicial review, they stepped outside of what the founders originally intended by inadvertently turning the Constitution into a living document due to the inevitable incorporation of their own cognitive biases.

no, no, no, the smart guy up there with the red name (he knows caro) just explained it as clear as could be, in unimistakable language

marbury vs madison empowers the court to review legislation to ensure that it aligns with the meaning of the constitution as interpreted

not changed
 
no, no, no, the smart guy up there with the red name (he knows caro) just explained it as clear as could be, in unimistakable language

marbury vs madison empowers the court to review legislation to ensure that it aligns with the meaning of the constitution as interpreted

not changed

You don't understand what I am saying. Let me put it another way.

Once the courts obtain judicial review, the Constitution became a living document inadvertently.
 
no, i understand you

it being living because the people who must interpret it aren't dead is not quite the same thing as an evolving document
 
No, what I am saying is that it is an imperfect system because it is made of imperfect people. The way the system should ideally be run is not how it has been ran since 1803. The moment that the courts obtained the power of judicial review, they stepped outside of what the founders originally intended by inadvertently turning the Constitution into a living document due to the inevitable incorporation of their own cognitive biases.

Brown v. Board of Education

Gideon v. Wainwright

Loving v. Virginia

Lawrence v. Texas

Those are just off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
no, i understand you

it being living because the people who must interpret it aren't dead is not quite the same thing as an evolving document

And that is where I disagree with him. The moment it was opened up to judicial review, I feel it became a living document and that is how it has existed since 1803. Abstractly, you may disagree, but realistically, that is how it has been.
 
And that is where I disagree with him. The moment it was opened up to judicial review, I feel it became a living document and that is how it has existed since 1803. Abstractly, you may disagree, but realistically, that is how it has been.

thank you, i hear you

cliff
 
You don't understand what I am saying. Let me put it another way.

Once the courts obtain judicial review, the Constitution became a living document inadvertently.

I just don't understand why you think that one must lead to the other. It's entirely possible for judicial review to exist for centuries without anyone believing that the actual language of the Constitution should be subject to reinterpretation by the courts so as to reflect the views of the masses. I know that it's possible because that's what happened for approximately 130 years. Even though the concept was first advanced 80 years ago, it still does not reflect a consensus view of how the Constitution works.

The reason why you're saying that judicial review automatically results in a living constitution is because you're defining "living Constitution" so broadly that it's lost all meaning.
 
I just don't understand why you think that one must lead to the other. It's entirely possible for judicial review to exist for centuries without anyone believing that the actual language of the Constitution should be subject to reinterpretation by the courts so as to reflect the views of the masses. I know that it's possible because that's what happened for approximately 130 years. Even though the concept was first advanced 80 years ago, it still does not reflect a consensus view of how the Constitution works.

The reason why you're saying that judicial review automatically results in a living constitution is because you're defining "living Constitution" so broadly that it's lost all meaning.

If that is how you see it then fine.

I would say that the Constitution is a great document if you are land owning, white male. That is who it was designed by and who it was intended to benefit, and it is no coincidence that the biggest supporters of a literal interpretation of the Constitution are white male, merchants generally of the upper middle class.
 
Last edited:
yup, we're all hi church tories, cavaliers

damn those roundheads

LOL!
 
I think anyone who thinks like this should not be allowed to serve as a judge,lawyer let alone a professor at some university to teach law.

jamesrage:

Was there kiddie porn when the constitution/bill of rights was written?

Answer that question and then put the statement you find so disagreeable into some sort reasonable intelligent context.

Setting aside the partisan exaggeration in your post, this is an ongoing tug-of-war... Is the constitution a living breathing thing, that grows and changes or do we interpret it in a vacuum.

The right answer: We find a pragmatic middle ground.
 
If that is how you see it then fine.

I would say that the Constitution is a great document if you are land owning, white male. That is who it was designed by and who it was intended to benefit, and it is no coincidence that the biggest supporters of a literal interpretation of the Constitution are white male, merchants generally of the upper middle class.

Yes, and all proponents of the living Constitution are black people raised in abject poverty in the rural South. Wait, no, that's Clarence Thomas, a strong proponent of originalism, while privileged white males such as Breyer, Stevens and Souter go around expounding about the virtues of a living document. If you're going to rely on irrelevant arguments in lieu of a well-developed judicial philosophy, at least try to base them on reality.
 
jamesrage:

Was there kiddie porn when the constitution/bill of rights was written?

Answer that question and then put the statement you find so disagreeable into some sort reasonable intelligent context.

Setting aside the partisan exaggeration in your post, this is an ongoing tug-of-war... Is the constitution a living breathing thing, that grows and changes or do we interpret it in a vacuum.

The right answer: We find a pragmatic middle ground.

Yes, and as everyone knows, there's no possible way that anything other than the Constitution could deal with the issue of kiddie porn.

If only there were some sort of legislative body that could draft laws to deal with things like this, thus freeing the judicial system from its need to reinterpret the Constitution to deal with whatever bull**** issue that people think is important today...
 
If that is how you see it then fine.

I would say that the Constitution is a great document if you are land owning, white male. That is who it was designed by and who it was intended to benefit, and it is no coincidence that the biggest supporters of a literal interpretation of the Constitution are white male, merchants generally of the upper middle class.

ie the people who made this country what it is:mrgreen:
 
If only there were some sort of legislative body that could draft laws to deal with things like this, thus freeing the judicial system from its need to reinterpret the Constitution to deal with whatever bull**** issue that people think is important today...

if only

and all it would have to do is find that pragmatic middle ground
 
He testified before Congress to criticize Alito's qualifications based on some dubious arguments, and comes across as the kind of person who places ideology above consistency.

Why the hell do you think the Messiah nominated him? In the Messiah's world and circle of friends, actually obeying the Constitution is heresy.
 
The founding fathers understood that the constitution would be and should be able to flex.

Yes, they did. That's why they wrote an Amendment process into the Constitution itself. They figured whenever the people wanted to flex their Constitution, they could Amend it.

They most certainly did not allow that unelected lifetime judges would wield editorial control over the Constitution.

After all, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not open to debate, its meaning is 100% obvious to all honest people.

It is the judges responsiblity to understand the spirit of the law and define it based on the situation.

No, it's the judge's responsibility to understand the text of the law and determine if that text complies with the text of the Constitution.

"shall not be infringed" leaves no room to wiggle.

The Tenth Amendment doesn't allow the Congress and the President and the Courts room to usurp powers.
 
Yeah those dang activist judges and their Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia. The constitution means what I say it means!

You mean the Brown vs Board of Education activist decision that reversed the Plessy vs Ferguson activist decision, don't you?
 
I can't for the life of me understand how people interpret Constitution and Bill of Rights to mean, flexible guidelines.

Because they want to and if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to do as much damange to the country as they wish, that's ow.

The argument that The Constitution was meant to be a living document is only in reference to the amending process.

Well, of course. If it was a living document, the national archives killed it when they immersed it in the 100% argon atmosphere it's currently kept in. The National Archives suffocated the poor thing.


However that worked, it's pretty clear that Obama and Nancy and Harry and the rest of their followers and supporters believe the Constitution is now dead.
 
Yeah, like when those damn black people wanted to ride in the front of buses, and drink from white only water fountains, and go to desegregated schools. How dare they challenge the values this country was founded on! Don't they know that the founders considered them only 3/5ths of a person! They totally deserved the firehoses and police dogs being turned on them!

Interestingly enough, that Three-Fifth's issue was resolved by....get this, by a Constitutional AMENDMENT. Ohh....no "living document" bull**** there, just a flat out change to the Constitution.

Fancy that.

The Democrats and their Jim Crow nonsense was condoned by the Courts in the Plessy vs Ferguson decision....a fine example of the Living Document Theory at work.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to provide transportation services, hence no where in the Constitution can be found any basis for the so-called Seperate But Equal transport arrangements enacted in the Southern States after Reconstruction, and since it can't be found in the document, the idea that a "living" Constitution covered the insanity of racial segregation is flat absurd.

However, it was the Living Document Theory that created federal toleration of racial segregation, not any sort of strict constructionism.

And how about those abortion clinics?

How about 'em? The Constitution doesn't grant women the right to murder babies. It's not in there.

Again, the Living Document Theory has created magically appearing formerly non-existent rights, that have led to the destruction of nearly one hundred million babies since Roe v Wade created new unconstituitonal laws.

Truly, those people were shown the love of Jesus when those clinics were bombed and abortion doctors were murdered. How dare they impose their sick practice of abortion, even though abortions were practiced even during the founding father's time!

Yes, how dare the federal government intrude on what everyone recognized was a state and local issue. Try reading the Tenth Amendment sometime.

And the gays! They are the sickest group of all!

I disagree.

There's the socialists and Marxists and other "progressives". To be a useless idiot like that and not even realize their useless idiots, that's true self-debasement there.

To think that sodomy laws would be overturned and the government would no longer have a right knowing what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults! This a travesty to the values of this country!

Sodomy isn't a federal issue, except for national security employment aspects such as military personnel and federal employees with access to sensitive security information.

Identify the clause of the Constitution that gives the federal governemnt to interfere in state sodomy laws. I agree that fudge packing among consenting adults isn't something the state and local government should intervene in, just provide the Constitutional justification for making sodomy a federal issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom