Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
|
well, now it's my turn to admit I'm stumped by your response
it looks like you said that you're not a constructionist as I would think of one, but you are a constructionist as you think of one?
I actually gave a point a & b to support my claim of your constructionist stance. Since you didn't even address them, I'm going to assume my memory is correct in regards to those two points until you say otherwise....
as for Scalia, since neither he nor I call or consider him to be one, I fail to see the relevance of tossing him out there...unless it was a strawman.
lastly, I'm confused on your read of the constitutional rights being directed toward what the government can do because I distinctly remember you railing against me in the past that the amendments are specifically what the government CAN'T do. My memory may be faulty, I may be thinking of someone else, but reading over the Bill of Rights I'd have to say that the rights written therein are directly speaking against your analysis that they are rights of what the government CAN do rather than what the feds CAN NOT do. (and here we'll probably break down again because it was this precise point, that it wasn't until much much later that anyone conceived of the idea that those rights would limit what the state or a local city can not do, it's this precise point that our discussions in the past have broken down)...yet in this case, you want us to agree with you that these two indvidual citizens have inaliable rights over the local police force.