JohnnyD--firstly, your falling into the trap that nullifies your own assertion that "striking down the DC and the Chicago bans are Constitutionally correct choices" if you believe that judicial "interpretation" is based on personal opinion, especially opinion that is not Constitutionally based. Judicial opinions based on personal opinions make the Constitution moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution are interpretative... probably why few major decisions are voted 9-0.
The DECISIONS may be interpretive (rightly or wrongly), the CONSTITUTION is not.
I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as Unconstitutional.
You may argue that a punishment is or is not "cruel and unusual", but you may not disregard the Constitutional command against such punishment. Again, the decision may have shades of "interpretation", but the Constitutional statute is not nullilfied or changed.
The Constitution is a document which needs to be interpreted. I believe our Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in some aspects to preserve the documents longevity and legitimacy as the country developed and changed.
The Constitution needs to be adhered to and applied, not interpreted. Judicial "interpretation" is supposed to be an application of and adherence to the Constitution. If said "interpretation" is based on personal whim, political orientation, views of "social justice" not contained in the Constitution, this results in an unauthorized change to the Constitution. The Constitution was not left vague. It was specifically clear in its mode and intent. It is was, as you say, meant to maintain longevity over time and change by its brief (not vague) adherence to natural law (especially human nature) and the pre-eminence of natural rights above government restrictions. It made clear how it could be changed. It did not provide for change by Court fiat or "interpretation."
If this were not the case, everything within the Constitution would have been written in clear, well-articulated detail. Should that have happened, the Constitution would not have stood up to the test of time as effectively as it has and it would now be an outdated, ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes.
|
It was written in far clearer and intentionally limited detail than the ensuing muddy non-Constitutionally based opinions and decisions of activist judges. It will only stand the test of time if it is followed, not changed. Those who perceive it a living, breathing thing that evolves into permutations that destroy its original intentions (which they percieve to be outmoded and unapplicable to changing times and notions) will not follow it as written and the "change" will indeed make it an "ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes"--if it is actually, really, and TRULY discussed at all.
Obama's view that the Constitution should be about what government
should do rather than what it shouldn't do is exactly the activist "change" and ensuing destruction of the Constitution that I believe he meant, among other things, when he promised to fundamentally transform this nation. The Constitution is our foundation. His like minded appointments to the Supreme Court (and to lower Courts as well) will continue the progressive "change" that has been occuring to our fundamental law and governance.