September 19, 2005
quote of the day
"But liberals have recently taken to pretending judicial activism is — as The New York Times has said repeatedly — voting "to invalidate laws passed by Congress." Invalidating laws has absolutely nothing to do with "judicial activism." It depends on whether the law is unconstitutional or not. That's really the key point.
That's why we have a judicial branch, Mr. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times. It's not a make-work program for the black robe industry. It's a third branch of our government. You'll learn more about this concept next year when you're in the seventh grade, Pinch."
To me, the United States Constitution is a well-written, clearly-worded document. I don't see "penumbras" or "eminations" coming from it. Judges who do are self-appointed High Priests who want to re-write law to suit themselves.
THAT'S judicial activism. It's some pissant in a black robe who woke up one morning and decided that he (or she) was smarter than Thomas Jefferson. That's hubris at its worst.
Of course, I shouldn't mind. We fed the Constitution into the shredder during the Lincoln presidency and FDR and Lyndon Johnson wiped their asses on it, too. Nowdays, the Constitution is treated as a quaint relic, written by naive people who had no concept about what modern society would become.
I disagree. I believe that the Constitution was written with the FULL UNDERSTANDING of how people behave and what government will do if given the chance.
History does NOT prove me wrong.
"I disagree. I believe that the Constitution was written with the FULL UNDERSTANDING of how people behave and what government will do if given the chance. "
The founding fathers were the best of the best. Very intelligent and they had forethought. Your points are very true and frankly, that's the thing that get libs pissed off. That the FFs knew what they were doing and trying to put something together that would last rather than be at the whim of anyone.
The Constitution was written by Madison; Jefferson was in France at the time though he certainly had an influence on the establishment clause.
two parts of the constitution have caused the most problems-the clause allowing congress to regulate interstate commerce which the courts have taken to mean that the Federal government can regulate any gotdam thing it pleases. And, the 14th amendment which was actually written to give freed slaves civil rights but a rider was attached to punish southern states. The 14th amendment gives congress and the courts a license to steal when it proclaims equal rights under the law. Sound good on paper but by the time the courts got through with it states lost the right to run there own schools and , well, hell look it up. I don't want to write a book here.
I like "written with the FULL UNDERSTANDING of how people behave and what government will do if given the chance."
The tendency of humans to oppress others through the power of government has not diminished in the last 200 years.
Madison may have put the words on paper, but he didn't "write" the Constitution. Every line in that document was constructed by some of the brightest minds in the world at the time.
Can you imagine what the Founding Fathers would think about Chuck Schumer?
It is kind of ironic that it took some of the smartest men in the country over a year to write the constitution and another couple of years to put together the first ten amnedments to it yet the public today-especially the donk journalists-are upset because the Iraqis couldn't do it in 90 days.