Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Conservative Judicial Philosophy: That's BullShit

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:48 AM
Original message
Conservative Judicial Philosophy: That's BullShit
 
Run time: 04:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPA2cED9Al8
 
Posted on YouTube: June 29, 2010
By YouTube Member: SamSeder
Views on YouTube: 4556
 
Posted on DU: June 30, 2010
By DU Member: Joanne98
Views on DU: 635
 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Fourth recommedation/First Kick
!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'm torn on the issue.
I tend to come down on the side that says that the Constitution provides an intent for how our government was intended to run. For example, the whole idea of checks and balances of power between the judicial, executive, legislative and military was enshrined in our Constitution. Already the check against the military has largely been removed since 1903, when the decentralized State Militias were federalized and put under the control of the federal government.

This is a case where the intent of the Constitution was subverted through legislation.

The right to keep and bear arms has constantly been under attack as something that needs curtailing since supposedly the founders could not envision modern firearms. But the Constitutional intent was clearly to keep military power out of the hands of the federal government, or at least to insure that the people had the means to counter it. Most anti-firearm proponents dismiss this idea out-of-hand as being "obsolete". This again is a case where the intent of the Constitution is being subverted by people who claim that it is no longer relevant.

I think we should err on the side of strict interpretation of our Constitution wherever possible. I think if it is felt that parts of the Constitution truly are obsolete then the proper procedures for amending it need to be followed instead of simply "re-interpreting" what is already written.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC