I thought that the "Constitution" was a "Living Document", atleast that is what
"Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress" Do you include Obama in this statement?
I think Obama's view of the Constitution is a major part of the problem. He sees the Constitution as a failure as it did not provide for economic equality. The Constitution is the cornerstone of a great building and needs to be firm and unchanging, that is the reason why so few amendments have been passed over the years. It is a difficult and time consuming process to change, thank you founding fathers. It is because of the Constitution that the minority in this county have protection and rights, and the opportunity to reach the highest, but it does not guarantee they will succeed. And this is the way it should be. The fact of Obama getting elected to the highest office, whether that is good or bad, is because our Constitution guarantees certain rights, always has. But it does not guarantee certain things the Democrat party has tried to convince the American people it does. There is no guarantee to a paid for education, it does not guarantee the right to an abortion, even under the guise of privacy, it does not guarantee the right of homosexual marriage. It does set limits on the intrusion of the government into the affairs of its citizens. And it does guarantee the right of its citizens to bear arms. and worship and free speech.
1. Paid education: The constitution does not guarantee any education at all: paid or unpaid. If the government decides to provide a public education, it must be done in a manner that does not violate other terms of the Constitution.
2. Right to an abortion: The Constitution doesn't guarantee either the right to have children or the right not to have children. Theoretically, a law could be passed that outlawed child birth altogether and the Constitution would be unaffected. However, the Supreme Court has historically decided that there is an inherent right to privacy and that government cannot interfere in certain areas without substantial cause. That was the basis for the Roe v Wade decision and for the overturning of sodomy laws. Certain justices believe that there is no inherent right of privacy. If Roe v Wade is overturned it will be for that reason. In that case, all bets are off when it comes to other rights of privacy.
3. Homosexual marriage: The Constitution does not guarantee any right of marriage whether homosexual or heterosexual. In fact, marriage was not generally a matter of civil law at all when the Constitution was written. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether and simply focus on providing a legal framework for settling property disputes and custody issues arising out of the dissolution of personal partnerships. Since marriage law does this well, we could simply replace the word marriage in all laws with the word "civil union" and leave it at that.
4. Intrusion of government. The Constitution does not explicitly guarantee privacy. It does protect against unreasonable search and seizure and contains the general "Liberty" clause. Those have been the basis for deciding that there is an implicit right of privacy. If Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia have their way, Roe v. Wade will be overturned and the right of privacy will disappear with it.
5. Bear Arms: Actually the language of the Constitution is not as clear as the NRA would like us to believe and the most recent decision of the Court may become the basis for more and more limits on the types of weapons that may be owned by an individual.
6. Right to worship: The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." People tend to forget that the right to worship is only as broad as the insistance that the government not be party to the process.
7. Freedom of speech: The right to free speech and a free press are probably the most unambiguous rights spelled out in the Constitution and are the most frequently attacked. Personally, I believe that without those two rights, the rest are meaningless. If that means that purveyors of pornography can operate to their heart's content, so be it. The reality is that pornographers are not the ones who make their content the most popular destination on the internet.
Good stuff Jeff, although I take issue with a couple that you already know. Why would Scalia and others throw out the right to privacy with Roe v Wade? Why would they have to go that route to overturn it? Couldn't they just simply say it is best left up to the states and the court should not have meddled, or is there more involved?
I haven't followed the others much but, I don't see that fitting into Scalia's philosophy.
Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
Scalia is on record that he does not believe that there is any such right to privacy and that, as far as he is concerned, the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion. For that reason it should be left to the States.
Roberts took similar positions in memos he wrote while working in the Reagan administration, stating "All of us, for example," he wrote, "may heartily endorse a 'right to privacy.' That does not, however, mean that courts should discern such an abstraction in the Constitution, arbitrarily elevate it over other constitutional rights and powers by attaching the label 'fundamental,' and then resort to it as, in the words of one of Justice Black's dissents, 'a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional.' "
It is more difficult to classify Thomas' position since he almost never writes opinions, never writes articles, and never asks questions. In his confirmation hearing he said he believed in a right of privacy but declined to comment of anything related to abortion. In prior lectures and discussions he was quoted as having said that there was no right to privacy and that in fact the Constitution should be interpreted to prohibit all abortion. In his hearings he stated that he no memory of those comments which were testified to by various parties.
The ground work for Roe v Wade rested in an earlier case (Griswold v. Connecticut) overturning a Connecticut law that restricted contraception even among married adults. That case was based on the right to privacy which was deemed to flow from several of the amendments but most specifically the 14th. The most common attack on Roe v Wade has been that the Constitution does not use the word privacy and that there is no such thing as an implicit right. Other than possibly from Thomas, there is no support among the justices for an interpretation of the Constitution that would grant civil rights to unborn children.
I'm sick of hearing we need to create new jobs, lets just keep people in their current jobs and let them keep their home. Instead of creating new we could always give them back their old jobs!
Everyone's friend is No One's friend
Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!
On another but related front, I hear this nation also has something like 64 square miles of vacant retail space right now. Enough to supply our needs for 10 years. Not only is the housing boom over, so is the building boom for retail space.
I may be wrong but I dont think He was pushing 1 for english.