Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 4 weeks ago

Did we just dodge another bullet? Lib lawyers insisted, justices can change the meanings of written words in the Constitution. They called..? a "living document". 

- Is it not crystal clear WHY they pushed for that? 

- They don't even TRY to hide their determination to legislate from the bench. 

- If they're required BY the Constitution to only change meanings and intent through the amendment process, they can't do that. 

- Again, did we not just dodge another bullet???

3 Answers

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    The big problem with this argument is that conservatives think it's a living document too.  They're just utterly dishonest about it.  Most conservative justices legislate from the bench.  For example, Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly did so in Shelby County v Holder, a ruling which gutted the Voting Rights Act by invalidating the map which showed which jurisdictions were covered by the law.  In doing so, he was quite explicit that he was legislating from the bench and substituting his personal policy preferences for those of the Congress which had passed that map with near unanimity.  Roberts did not say that the law, or the map inside it, was unconstitutional or illegal.  He just said that it was wrongly decided from a policy perspective and that he was throwing it out.  In doing so, he invented an entirely new legal doctrine of "equal dignity of the states" that had never existed before in American law.  Conservative justices have engaged in similar actions in other cases.  For example, in Heller v DC, Antonin Scalia invented, for the first time in American history, an individual right to bear arms.  The list goes on and on and on. 

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    They can start with things like the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the books by noted authors during the Age of Enlightenment, then work forward to the Federalist Papers. Peripheral writings are crystal clear in almost every case. 

  • 4 weeks ago

    Who decides what the meanings are? Certainly, some things are very straightforward, like you must be 35 or older to be the president. But what about "due process", "unreasonable", etc.?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.