Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
which is exactly why we find ourselves tearing at the seams today.
the constitution is NOT a living document. It is a legal document. It MUST be interpreted as such, ESPECIALLY considering that there is already a built in way to alter the constitution without judicial tyranny or social engineering.
At least Ron Paul is still trying to do the right thing. Too bad too many other wayward people don't believe that way.
|
I know you dont agree with Thurgood Marshall (as quoted above) but that doesnt equate with a nation "tearing at the seams". The tiered federal judiciary works pretty well for the most part in interpreting the law. The fact that interpretations of the Constitution don't always match yours or Ron Paul's (or mine) doesnt make them wayward.
The 9th amendment and "non-enumerated rights" of the people (the founders had the wisdom to know there might be rights in the future that are not specifically identfied in the Constitution) is one example of the living nature of the Constitution.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Is privacy a non-enumerated right? It is a matter of interpretation.
If I recall, the Federalist Papers also debated evolving federal vs states rights as the nation evolved, even within the context of the 10th amendment
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Can
"the people" express their desire for new or enhanced federal powers (not specifically delegated in the Constitution - like parts of the Patriot Act) through their elected representatives in Congress? It is a matter of interpretation.
Quote:
|
what is to stop ANY branch of the government from offering up their own 'change with the times' interpretation of infringing on your precious freedom of speech or privacy?
|
I do have problems with the excessive use of "free speech zones" by the Bush administration to restrict protests to places that keep people away from any direct contact with the President. I dont know if any such cases (like the limits on protests in NYC during the Repub convention in '04) have worked through the federal judiciary yet.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decides all of the above and it's positions have fluctuated over time and with regard to various issues.
Where is Loquitor when you need a good lawyer?