Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ubertuber
I propose that we undertake to discuss what exactly judicial activism would be and how it relates to the legitimate business of the courts. In particular I'd like to see a cogent defense of said activism (if we can even figure out what it is) and the idea that the Consitution is a document that is open to change.
|
I should probably revisit this part. I'm not trying to say that the constitution cannot be changed at all, that is what the amendment process is for, but that doesn't make it a living document. The 'living document' theory, to me, means that the document will be interpreted to mean different things depending upon societal times and I think that is wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
The Constitution is open to formal change as evidenced by it's amendments. I believe that "judicial activism" is meant as a negative term that refers to an informal judicial reinterpretation of the meaning of the constitution or the framers' intent. Unlike formal amendments to the constitution, these reinterpretations address the meaning of the constitution.
|
My sentiments exactly. 'judicial activism' would be making law out of the constitution that doesn't exist or rewriting law out of the constitution. Things like 'the people' meaning an individual in several amendments, only to then define it as 'the state' in another. Another example of J/A would be the incorporation amendment interpretation of applying to only SOME of the bill of rights instead of ALL.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
I am firmly against the legislation of morality in any form, so I have no argument with any of these changes per se. I do have a problem with the apparent federal interference in state affairs. I hope that there is someone here that is versed on the argument or "reinterpretation" SCOTUS made to supercede state law.
|
the morality argument is why I have issue with Clarence Thomas. I'm still trying to find the source of his statement about it being the governments responsibility to teach and enforce morality. What 'reinterpretation' decision are you talking about?