So what Constitutional documents would you like to live under?

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Justice Ginsberg believes the Constitution is dead in America and could be better replaced by other foreign documents.

SOURCE

Diminishing the Constitution

Posted on February 10, 2012

It is certainly no surprise for gun owners to see the New York Times run a story belittling the United States Constitution. After all, the Times has worked for decades to devalue our founding document.

“ts influence is waning,” opines the Times. It is “terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.” The paper faults the Constitution for being difficult to amend and reflective of the times in which it was written. While the Times does not go so far as to claim the U.S. Constitution has been bad for America, it does lament that it is of “little current use to, say, a new African nation.”

But it was a much bigger shock when the Times reported in the same story that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a sitting associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and grande dame of the Court’s liberal voting bloc, shares the Times’ dim view of the Constitution. Ginsburg said “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” Her personal recommendations would instead include “the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

None of this should come as a surprise. One wonders, for example, if Justice Ginsburg even looks to the United States Constitution when interpreting it in 2012. Having had only limited success in getting the courts to creatively re-imagine the Constitution to suit their individual tastes, America’s legal, academic, and media elites are now determined to minimize what is left of the founding charter’s original meaning and intent by making unflattering comparisons to “sexier,” more expansive documents that empower state bureaucracies, undermine individual rights, and micromanage citizens’ day-to-day lives.

Those who hold this view would be happy see our Constitution abandoned in favor of a more “modern” document that grants “rights” such as health care, housing and employment, while eliminating protections for the right to keep and bear arms and restrictions on the powers of the central government. What these visionaries see as deficiencies in our Constitution are exactly the things that make it work so well. Its purpose is to guarantee fundamental rights and to protect liberty by restricting government power.

While it is lamentable that the Times cannot see the greatness of our Constitution, it is far more troubling that Justice Ginsburg cannot. And most troubling of all is the possibility that if elected to a second term, President Obama could appoint even more justices who share Justice Ginsburg’s views.
Click to expand...
 
Social justice!!!!

Wanna bet she thinks the French revolution was the enlightenment of the American revolution?
 
How about we call it something else? Let's see, now, what should we call it?

How about "The Supreme Law of the Land"? Yeah. I like that one. How's that rub you?
 
How about you STFU get in the back of the bus
and just

34payab.jpg
 
original article.

here's how it ends. with a typical liberal commentary.

The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

There are, of course, limits to empirical research based on coding and counting, and there is more to a constitution than its words, as Justice Antonin Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. “Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights,” he said.

“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ ”

what you're missing jim is that the article is nothing more than a comparison of the US constitution with current fashion trends. regardless, this adam guy is, well, just one guy. the piece reflects certain, say, interests, but i doubt this will launch a groundswell to repeal the constitution and replace it with the bob and doug mackenzie model.
 
What you're missing minkey is a Supreme Court Justice of the United States doesn't think the US Constitution is a good document to use for a basis of government. She finds sources outside her jurisdiction to base her rulings on & she believe that social justice is preferable to equal justice.
 
i didn't miss that... it's more that her sucking is about as novel as biden saying something stupid.
 
2minkey said:
i didn't miss that... it's more that her sucking is about as novel as biden saying something stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned when a (life-time appointment) Justice says
stupid crap like that then when a known buffoon like Biden does.
He was picked as VP to assure Obamna didn't get shot.
 
i'm not too worried given her age and health problems. she is quite likely to either retire or expire in the next few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top