Judges Ignoring the Constitution!
Thursday, February 1st, 2013
New York, New York
FORGET THE CONSTITUTION
IT’S DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!
In
the current Second Amendment gun debate, both gun control advocates and those
citizens who demand the right to bear arms point to the U.S. Constitution as
the source of the justification and support for their opposing beliefs. An interesting difference in interpretation,
you may say. But are there really any guaranteed constitutional protections
these days? Not according to Supreme
Justice Anthony Scalia, perhaps the court’s most conservative member.
In a
recent speech at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Scalia was asked if
he believed that the Constitution was a “living document.” His blunt response was, “It’s not a living
document. It’s dead, dead, dead. And the
sad thing is that Scalia is correct. He’s right on the money. For all practical
purposes, The United States Constitution is “dead, dead, dead.”
Progressives
will argue that in a changing world, there must be a more flexible
interpretation of what the founders meant when they wrote the initial document.
Is there flexibility in the original document, and shouldn’t it be open to
change?
Barack
Obama thinks so. In his book, "The Audacity of Hope, the future
president clearly says: “I appreciate the temptation on the part of
Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed
and unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original
understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation,
and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they
intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow. Ultimately, though,
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution -- that it is not
a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an
ever-changing world.”
Republican
President George Bush seems to be in lockstep with Obama on this matter. Back
in 2005, several press reports, including one from Capitol Hill Blue, cited a
meeting in the Oval Office with congressional members to discuss renewing
several questionable provisions of the Patriot Act. Bush made no bones about his feelings for the
Constitution. GOP leaders told Bush that his
hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further
alienate conservatives still mad at the President for his botched attempt to
nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a
g..damn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the
Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one
aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in
this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the
Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a g..damned piece
of paper!"
So much for relying on the views
of our founding fathers. Republicans and
Democrats alike have cast away any reasonable reference to guaranteed basic
protections that supposedly served as the basis for the Bill of Rights. Few seem to be reading the words of Alexander
Hamilton who put it this way. “If it be asked, what is the most sacred duty
and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An
inviolable respect for the Constitution.”
Here’s
the bottom line. You have no more firm,
unwavering constitutional protections.
And you want to know who’s to blame? Just take a look in the mirror. Time
after time over the last 20 years, American citizens have stood by and watched as
presidents and members of Congress have eroded and undermined our basic
constitutional liberties. Here are few
examples.
Begin with the Patriot Act.
Simply put, the Patriot Act is one of the most egregious acts against basic
rights and liberties that we have witnessed in our lifetimes. This dastardly
unconstitutional law has driven a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights,
violating at least six of the ten original amendments -- the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and the Eighth. If our founding fathers were to
witness what congress and the last two presidents have permitted and encouraged
regarding our constitutional liberties, they would turn over in their graves.
Conservative columnist John
Whitehead put it this way: “In the name of fighting terrorism, government
officials are now permitted to monitor religious and political institutions
with no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing; prosecute librarians or keepers of
any other records if they told anyone that the government had subpoenaed
information: monitor conversations between attorneys and clients; search
and seize Americans’ papers and effects without showing probable cause, and
jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.”
So to all you gun totin’ Second
Amendment advocates and you so-called progressive “living and moving”
constitutional proponents of government gun regulation, just where have you
been? Neither side can site or rely on the
Constitution for support. Oh, you might
get lucky, and find a judge who will go along with your point of view. Right or wrong, that’s how the system works
today. Remember the movie “Law-Abiding
Citizen?” The system lets a killer go
free. The prosecutor meets with the
presiding judge, who calmly looks the prosecutor in the eye, and says: “That’s
one of the benefits of being a judge, Mr. Rice. I can do whatever I want.”
And that’s how this whole
controversy is going to end up. We
witnessed it in Bush v. Gore, and saw it happen in the Supreme Court decision
over Obamacare. These judges will make a
discretionary decision setting their own parameters, and decide the Second
Amendment case by doing “anything they want.”
Sadly, the constitution has become irrelevant.
*******
"The Constitution, which at
any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole
People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." George Washington
Peace
and Justice
Jim
Brown
posted by Jim Brown @ 8:19 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home