|
| Judges, stubbornness destroying Constitution |
| Wednesday, March 16, 2005 |
| It's time to rethink our allegiance to The Constitution of the United States. For some of us, the commitment is so strong that we don't want to touch a hair on its head. That commitment has unwittingly contributed to its eventual, if not imminent demise.
This thought came to me as I absorbed the message that Justice Antonin Scalia delivered to the nation Monday in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. Rush Limbaugh played key parts of the justice's presentation to his audience Tuesday. Only a few other news organizations have reported on the speech.
In a 35-minute address, Justice Scalia imparted enough wisdom to fruitfully realign the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches of government for at least the next century, if not until the end of time. But, accepting his advice will necessarily involve abandoning our aversion to amending the Constitution.
Scalia refers to himself as an "originalist." By that, he means that the parts of the Constitution that have not been amended mean today exactly what they meant when it was written. Since the Constitution has a provision for amendments, if the people, through our elected leaders, want it to say something different, we must amend it.
Many conservatives have adopted a "strict constructionist" view of the constitution, which is similar to Scalia's "originalist" view, except that the strict constructionists believe that the original wisdom is infallible and should never be altered. I am among those who revere the brilliance of the Founders, but we sometimes forget that among their wise decisions was the decision to provide for changes in the Constitution they gave us.
For most of our history, when public attitudes evolved, such as the decisions to include blacks and women in the political process, Congress and the states heeded the Founders' intent by adding amendments to reflect the new consensus. Women who refused to accept their second-class status found no refuge in the court. Rather, they employed the democratic process that the Constitution requires and won passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.
Fast-forward to March 1st this year. The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the juvenile death penalty, citing "evolving notions of decency." What evidence did it use? A majority of the states do not allow the execution of murderers who committed the murders when they were juveniles. However, of those states that still have a death penalty, the majority DOES allow such executions. The court is not only ignoring the need for constitutional authority for its decisions, it is stretching the definition of majority to couch it personal opinions in political terms.
As Justice Scalia said Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered the Constitution useless. Can we resuscitate it? Maybe. But we must be willing to change it occasionally if we want to save it. If we take the stand that the Constitution, or any part of it, is perfect and must not be altered, we invite a continuation of judicial action that ignores the original intent. The Constitution is elastic. Its elasticity is the provision for amendments, which has been used successfully just 16 times since the Bill of Rights was adopted.
I have been guilty of a prejudice against amending the Constitution. That prejudice is the product of respect for the document and its authors. However, almost nothing, not even the constitution, can stand the test of time without occasional upgrades and improvements. Taking a hands-off approach to the finest built home or the grandest political foundation can doom it to uselessness over time.
The Constitution was crafted to withstand changes and improvements. It was not crafted to last forever in its original form. Protecting it from lawful, democratic and thoughtful change makes it even more vulnerable to capricious, impulsive and undemocratic manipulation by political oriented judges.
We haven't amended the Constitution since the 26th Amendment was adopted in 1971, giving 18-year-olds the right to vote. If I had my way, the 27th Amendment would give Congress the same check over the judicial branch that it has over the President. Congress should have the power to overturn Supreme Court rulings with a 2/3rd vote in each chamber.
That would help protect the Constitution from further judicial mischief, and begin the long overdue resuscitation process.
Ralph Bristol |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/16/2005 12:03:00 PM   |
|
| 1 Comments: |
-
That Scalia is brilliant.
Da Snip calls it again.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
That Scalia is brilliant.
Da Snip calls it again.