It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

page: 15
62
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

He is a fool if he does not at least acknowledge the bill of rights are inalienable rights all humans are born with and that will never, ever change.




posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Richard Posner has been showing his real colors which is not conservative/republican, but rather liberal/democrat.

Yet more evidence that tptb are trying to destroy the United States Constitution...

edit on 29-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: xuenchen

Richard Posner has been showing his real color which is not conservative/republican, but rather liberal/democrat.

Yet more evidence that tptb are trying to destroy the United States Constitution...


Are the Founders also liberal/democrats trying to destroy that which they created when they included the means to change/alter the constitution as needed?



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Are the Founders also liberal/democrats trying to destroy that which they created when they included the means to change/alter the constitution as needed?


What?... The founding fathers stated the rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights were God given/natural... Not rights which the State could ban... Not to mention that amendments were not made to destroy the Constitution...

What they actually stated is that if the government becomes tyrannical it is the right of the people to depose such government...
They weren't talking about destroying the U.S. Constitution...
edit on 29-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: xuenchen
Seems this Judge is stationed in Chicago, and lives near the Obama home.

This explains the whole thing.



OK. I'm a 2/3 of the way of seeing what this is about. Who appointed this man to the bench?


What i find more important to ask is who is he siding with right now instead of what he said and did to get the job 30 years ago.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: introvert

Are the Founders also liberal/democrats trying to destroy that which they created when they included the means to change/alter the constitution as needed?


What?... The founding fathers stated the rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights were God given/natural... Not rights which the State could ban... Not to mention that amendments were not made to destroy the Constitution...


No one said anything about banning.

The Founders included a process in which the constitution can be altered/amended as needed to reflect changes in society.

That is pretty much what this judge was talking about. He was not talking about removing the bill of rights or state bans.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The Constitution defines what America is about. It is a precious document. It is the Law, and those who disagree need to take a hike



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No... Xuenchen showed clearly what Richard Posner is talking about.


According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner in a post published to Slate, U.S. judges should stop studying the Constitution.

I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner argued.
...

www.mediaite.com...

He is claiming the U.S.Constitution is not a document that judges should be studying...



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Read everything he says:

www.slate.com... ed_more_practical_experience.html?wpsh_all_mob_tw_top


Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.


What he is saying is that the constitution does not reflect modern times and it's becoming much harder to reflect on constitutional principles when the constitution does not reflect modern life.

It needs to be updated. No where did he say there should be bans.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Devil's advocate here, but he didn't say anything about NOT
following the Constitution.

Taken out of context, his statement may not have been
as harsh as it seemed.

He may very well be a staunch supporter of the Constitution,
just doesn't see the benefit of decades of study of a paper that
could be memorized in weeks.

Just saying....I don't see the benefit either.

When you overthink something as simply and beautifully worded
as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you can eventually
find justifications to undermine its law.

Look at how the first and second amendment have been
eroded due to this kind of overthinking.

Sorry, but it is plain and simple, no need to STUDY.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: rival

Exactly.

It is the vagueness of the constitution in certain areas that has led to the erosion of certain rights.

Most notably, the 2nd amendment.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert



It is the vagueness of the constitution in certain areas that has led to the erosion of certain rights.


Yeah. Choose:

A) Those guys couldn't write worth a damn.

B) Those guys understood that, at its core, the Constitution is a framework and that society evolves.

C) A & B

D) None of the above.

E) Write in your thoughts here ____________________________________________________________.


That judge oughtta be fired. But of course, Congress is hard at work on other more pressing matters.


edit on 6/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

B, of course.

I believe they had the intelligence and enough history to look back on to create a document that gives a great foundation upon which we could build a better society.

But we have to be willing to reflect and adapt as needed, which would include little tweeks here and there.

Edit:



That judge oughtta be fired. But of course, Congress is hard at work on other more pressing matters.


I disagree. If he made rulings outside of current law or constitutional principles, I would agree. But he has a right to his opinion.
edit on 29-6-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

And, oh my. It provided the mechanism for those tweaks.
Those guys. Phfft.



I disagree. If he made rulings outside of current law or constitutional principles, I would agree. But he has a right to his opinion.
You think judges should be uneducated on the Constitution? That the principles, the framework, is irrelevant to their decisions?
edit on 6/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Here is Posner in 2009...I always look for pre-ideological-newswire spin context.


Question: What is the challenge of constitutional interpretation?Richard Posner: Well the latitude is complete.

If you actually read the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, some of the provisions are precise. They are the ones that are the real embarrassment, right? The Seventh Amendment says that you’re entitled to a jury trial in any civil case. I mean it excludes an injunction case, but any civil case where the amount in controversy is more than $20. Well that’s ridiculous. That’s $20 in 18th century terms. It’s an embarrassment, right? It results in entitling people to jury trials in tiny federal cases, so it’s ridiculous. But it’s hard to get around. Then there are provisions which also are embarrassingly precise.

So the Supreme Court has just taken the Second Amendment right to have a gun. So if you read the Second Amendment literally, the right to bear arms, you know, it seems pretty broad. But the courts traditionally have kind of ignored that. Now I don’t know what the Supreme Court will do.When you have a constitutional provision that’s, you know, more than 200 years old – if it’s very precisely stated, it’s likely to fall, likely to bear no relation to contemporary need. That’s a problem, and you don’t know what what to do.

I’ll give you an example. I was like, not in the Bill of Rights, but in the body of the Constitution, it says that Congress can create and fund and so on an army and a navy. But there’s no reference to an air force, right? So there’s no problem in simply having the army and the navy having an aviation arm. That’s no problem, weapons. But to create an air force as a separate branch of the armed services is not actually authorized in the Constitution, but that was just ignored. They created an air force. No one minds. So some provisions are simply ignored.

The other provisions – the ones that are vague – are simply given a modern meaning. And even Justice Scalia accepts that.

So the Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments. So if you were a real originalist you’d say, “Well let’s look at the 18th century and what was considered cruel and unusual.” And one of the things that wasn’t considered cruel and certainly wasn’t unusual was public flogging. But Justice Scalia said he believes that no, public flogging would today violate the Eighth Amendment.

And the Sixth Amendment creates a right to counsel in criminal cases. Well it’s perfectly clear historically. It’s also pretty clear from the text that all they meant by that was you could hire a lawyer in a criminal case. Nothing about the state, the government paying for a lawyer if you couldn’t afford one or anything like that.

Or the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause. It’s quite clear from the text and from the history that they couldn’t force a person in a trial or some other, you know, preceding which he’s testifying to incriminate himself. But that didn’t mean they couldn’t force him to confess outside the trial and then use that in some fashion in the trial.

So almost the entire body of constitutional law was created by the Supreme Court justices by free interpretation or no interpretation of the Constitution just using the Constitution as a jumping off point. Now clearly when you get to the sex cases, like the abortion case. I mean you can take the word like “liberty” and say, “Oh yeah, liberty, sex.” But that doesn’t have anything to do with 18th century thinking or with anything in the text except words are so vague they can be applied to anything that bothers you, you can say it infringes liberty.

So the text doesn’t impose a limit. Precedent doesn’t impose a limit. I mean it’s obvious something circular.

Supreme Court justices make up some principle. Like they say, for example, that you need a warrant to search a person’s home. Actually you read the Fourth Amendment, there’s nothing about requiring a warrant. The Fourth Amendment limits warrants, because the framers of the Constitution were concerned about warrants. If the search was conducted pursuant to a warrant, it gave the searching officer immunity from a suit. So they didn’t like warrants, but the Supreme Court turned that on its head and said, “You need a warrant.” So the fact that they said that, you can say, “Oh well that’s a precedent. Now if judges follow that, they’re just applying the law. They’re not making anything up.” But they’re implying something which is itself made up by judges. And the Supreme Court is not bound by its precedence.

Or it can distinguish them to death. It can distort what they say. So they have a complete free game, except for public opinion which might precipitate a constitutional amendment. So there are some things they can’t do. But that’s the only real limit.

Now at our level, we have a freedom in areas where the Supreme Court hasn’t spoken. But we do obviously have to follow the Supreme Court. Otherwise they’ll reverse us and humiliate us, so we have to follow the Supreme Court. So we’re more like real judges cause we have more constraints on us than the Supreme Court does.

bigthink.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



And, oh my. It provided the mechanism for those tweaks. Those guys. Phfft.


Yup. Kudos to them for having a bit of foresight.



You think judges should be uneducated on the Constitution?


No. I think they should be well-versed on the constitution, but I don't think he should be fired unless his actions on the bench contradict constitutional principles or current law.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The only thing worse than some judges spew is the media regurgitating it, including here.

You guys do realize this is how they indoctrinate people to 'new' ideas.

A judge is one step removed from god.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




No. I think they should be well-versed on the constitution, but I don't think he should be fired unless his actions on the bench contradict constitutional principles or current law.

You're right.
crap



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


B) Those guys understood that, at its core, the Constitution is a framework and that society evolves.

People don't change. Theres always those waiting in the wings to take of, by and for themselves. That they understood real well.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Thanks.

That's a good read.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join