Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I wrote that constructionists believe that.
And, up until today, dksuddeth has been a constructionist.
his every post on gun control hinges on the explicit words of the 2nd amendment, and all of his arguments I can remember defend the proposition that judges should a) not be activist from the bench (finding rights where none are explicitly written) and b) that justices can (and should) infer the constituational framers' original intent.
|
Not sure where I said that I was a constructionist, although i'm pretty sure that my definition of a constructionist is not going to be the same as yours. If Scalia is your definition of a constructionist, then I most certainly am not. Scalia is only a constructionist when it comes to things that he idealizes. Take, for example, the right to an abortion. His 'constructionism' tells him that since it's not specifically enumerated it must not exist, however, in the Raich case he goes on to say that the commerce clause gives congress to regulate the totally intrastate and personal growth and use of marijuana because marijuana CAN be interstate commerce, even if it's illegal commerce. That is not constructionism nor original intent. MY definition of constructionist, or original intent, is that ALL individuals have ALL rights and power but the constitution enumerates CERTAIN powers to the central government and that judges should not be granting extra powers to the government that weren't originally enumerated to them.