The PEOPLE and Amendments
The liberal extremists at the Boston Globe are simply out of control. Today, the "geniuses" on the editorial page chose to print a letter from an idiot that tried to use the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as proof that the document is a "living document". He was overly cute and the editorial board of the Boston Globe thought this was another opportunity to print a "we hate President George Bush" letter. The thing is, the letter writer was exactly right (not "ZACKlyRight", that's me) with everything he wrote except for acknowledging he, too, was a "constitutional originalist".
The letter writer wrote, "The original drafters wrote the first ten amendments - the Bill of Rights. Is this not sufficient evidence that the possibility for additional thinking is precisely what the Constitution's framers counted on when they made room for amendments? The amendments abolishing slavery and giving women suffrage came about because the Constitution enabled a reinterpretation of what the document meant by "all men".
Simply, and I'll type this s-l-o-w-l-y so the liberal extremists can follow along, the Amendments are drafted, voted on and passed by the . . . hold on now, I don't want to lose anybody . . . the P-E-O-P-L-E.
There are two ways an Amendment is approved. The first is by an Amendment being passed by both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives by a 2/3 majority. The proposed Amendment must then be approved by 3/4 of the individual states. The second involves a Constitutional Convention and this second means has never been used in our Country's history.
Sure, liberal extremists can believe that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (57 law clerks prior to her appointment and not one a person of color) can write law that supports a liberal extremist view. This is not the definition of sound jurisprudence. Lo the day that Associate Justice Scalia tries to write law.
The PEOPLE write law. I said this several days ago in my Alito post (please go back and read it). I was right then; I'm right today.
Anyway, the letter I sent to the Globe today:
Editor,
Based on a letter published in the Boston Sunday Globe (November 13), your readership may be under the impression that activist judges write Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; nothing could be further from fact.
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are passed in one of two ways: the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives pass an Amendment, each by a 2/3 vote, and then 3/4 of all the individual states must "pass" the Amendment or the never-used Constitutional Convention can be assembled.
The U.S. constitution is a "living document" as long as the PEOPLE say it is. Do liberal extremists that have enjoyed the activism of liberal judges really want to give "conservative" but non-originalist judges the same latitude? Or, can we all agree that the PEOPLE decide. If you think the PEOPLE should decide, then, guess what, you may be an originalist. (End of letter.)
The liberal extremists at the Boston Globe are simply out of control. Today, the "geniuses" on the editorial page chose to print a letter from an idiot that tried to use the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as proof that the document is a "living document". He was overly cute and the editorial board of the Boston Globe thought this was another opportunity to print a "we hate President George Bush" letter. The thing is, the letter writer was exactly right (not "ZACKlyRight", that's me) with everything he wrote except for acknowledging he, too, was a "constitutional originalist".
The letter writer wrote, "The original drafters wrote the first ten amendments - the Bill of Rights. Is this not sufficient evidence that the possibility for additional thinking is precisely what the Constitution's framers counted on when they made room for amendments? The amendments abolishing slavery and giving women suffrage came about because the Constitution enabled a reinterpretation of what the document meant by "all men".
Simply, and I'll type this s-l-o-w-l-y so the liberal extremists can follow along, the Amendments are drafted, voted on and passed by the . . . hold on now, I don't want to lose anybody . . . the P-E-O-P-L-E.
There are two ways an Amendment is approved. The first is by an Amendment being passed by both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives by a 2/3 majority. The proposed Amendment must then be approved by 3/4 of the individual states. The second involves a Constitutional Convention and this second means has never been used in our Country's history.
Sure, liberal extremists can believe that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (57 law clerks prior to her appointment and not one a person of color) can write law that supports a liberal extremist view. This is not the definition of sound jurisprudence. Lo the day that Associate Justice Scalia tries to write law.
The PEOPLE write law. I said this several days ago in my Alito post (please go back and read it). I was right then; I'm right today.
Anyway, the letter I sent to the Globe today:
Editor,
Based on a letter published in the Boston Sunday Globe (November 13), your readership may be under the impression that activist judges write Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; nothing could be further from fact.
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are passed in one of two ways: the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives pass an Amendment, each by a 2/3 vote, and then 3/4 of all the individual states must "pass" the Amendment or the never-used Constitutional Convention can be assembled.
The U.S. constitution is a "living document" as long as the PEOPLE say it is. Do liberal extremists that have enjoyed the activism of liberal judges really want to give "conservative" but non-originalist judges the same latitude? Or, can we all agree that the PEOPLE decide. If you think the PEOPLE should decide, then, guess what, you may be an originalist. (End of letter.)
posted by Zack at 2:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home