Dear Obama: Read the Constitution

To a certain extent this is true, but words mean something and we can interpret either in the light of the intention of the writers, or in the light of current situations. This battle has been going on for ages. What are generally considered 'liberals' contend that the constitution does not mean what it says, but what they want it to mean. True conservatives believe that the constitution says what is says and the current laws should be interpreted by it instead of vice-versa.

Obama is a classic liberal - he will not base his decision on the constitution itself, but on modern interpretations of it. Sadly, he is not the first president in the last 50 years to see the constitution that way.

Calling it a 'living document' subtly implies that those who are strict constructionists see it as dead. That is far from the truth, A strict constructionists sees it as living and viable and not subject to the whims and fancies of each succeeding generation.

 

(from a previous link)

Scalia is wrong here. The constitution covered that - if it is not in the Constitution it is left up the individual states, not some ethereal 'democracy.'

Whoops - correction here and apology to Justice Scalia - the 10th Amendment does cover the issue - but leaves things like this to the state or the people.

 

Scalia's position was that the topic of abortion, i.e. Roe v. Wade should never have been heard in any federal court at all, much less the Supreme Court. He sees himself as a strict constitutionalist ... if the Constitution does not talk about it, then the court has no place in making a decision about it.

 

Hence my apology, mea culpa.

Lets skip that and go back to post #41 .

 

No problem. We were and are civil and I appreciate that very much.

There is a question that came to my mind and that is once a decision has been made by the Supreme Court, like Roe v. Wade that a strict Constitutionalist believes should not have been heard in the first place ... can it be heard again with the possibility of the decision being reversed? Is this a violation of the philosophy of a strick Constitutionalist. I will start a thread on that as it does not fit this one about Obama and the Constitution.

 

See you there :thumbs: