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Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It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: 17
62
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ImmortalLegend527


This is really a game changer for the future kids ,the future of humanity and the future for people who hate to be controlled by simple words on a piece of paper.


Rather be controlled by way of the constitution than be controlled by an authoritarian government while looking down the barrel of a loaded gun.

You're right though... One has to be blind not to see just how authoritarian our government has gotten when not kept in check by that "piece of paper". Do youLike an authoritarian government? I don't.




posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Here is what he said:


And on another note about academia and practical law, 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 (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). 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. In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.


I'd say he actually has a point.

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

Then please feel free to leave.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Deluxe comments coming from a U.S. Federal Judge about the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) says he sees no reason for judges to study the Constitution !!

He claims it's too old and not up with today's culture.

He sees no value in studying any of it.

Sounds like he's really out of touch if you ask me.

I bet Obama agrees 100%.

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It


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.





I seem to remember part of my oath of office saying something about supporting and defending the Constitution. I'm sure a judges has the same thing in it.

So would that mean he is no longer willing to support and defend it? Which means at the very least he is in a breach of contract and at most has committed treason. Ether case seems ground for immediate termination.


(To be clear I KNOW EXACTLY what my oath of office said. Under US code 5 part 3331 "do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" )
edit on 30-6-2016 by dismanrc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Here is what he said:


And on another note about academia and practical law, 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 (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). 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. In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.


I'd say he actually has a point.

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


So that means Gay marriage issue should be removed? After all that was based on the 14th Amendment according to SCOTUS, and if the 14th is outdated then any ruling BASED on it is also outdated.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: SeeReeS

Thousands of years ago a very smart man said this.... you should read it in its entirety, for this is but a fraction of it

Timocracy

Socrates defines a timocracy as a government of people who love rule and honor. Socrates argues that the timocracy emerges from aristocracy due to a civil war breaking out among the ruling class and the majority. Over time, many more births will occur to people who lack aristocratic, guardian qualities, slowly drawing the populace away from knowledge, music, poetry and "guardian education", toward money-making and the acquisition of possessions. This civil war between those who value wisdom and those who value material acquisition will be in struggle until a just medium is compromised. The timocracy values war insofar as it satisfies a love of victory and honor. The timocratic man loves physical training, and hunting, and values his abilities in warfare.

Oligarchy

Temptations create a confusion between economic status and honor which is responsible for the emergence of oligarchy. In Book VIII, Socrates suggests that wealth will not help a pilot to navigate his ship, as his concerns will be directed centrally toward increasing his wealth by whatever means, rather than seeking out wisdom or honor. The injustice of economic disparity divides the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for criminals and beggars to emerge. The rich are constantly plotting against the poor and vice versa. The oligarchic constitution is based on property assessment and wealth qualification. Unlike the timocracy, oligarchs are also unable to fight war, since they do not wish to arm the majority for fear of their rising up against them (even more so fearing the majority than their enemies), nor do they seem to pay mercenaries, since they are reluctant to spend money.

Democracy

As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, the poor majority overthrow the wealthy minority, and democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the oligarchs and grant liberties and freedoms to citizens, creating a most variegated collection of peoples under a "supermarket" of constitutions. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class. However, with too much freedom, no requirements for anyone to rule, and having no interest in assessing the background of their rulers (other than honoring such people because they wish the majority well) the people become easily persuaded by such a demagogue's appeal to try and satisfy people's common, base, and unnecessary pleasures.

Tyranny

The excessive freedoms granted to the citizens of a democracy ultimately leads to a tyranny, the furthest regressed type of government. These freedoms divide the people into three socioeconomic classes: the dominating class, the elites and the commoners. Tensions between the dominating class and the elites cause the commoners to seek out protection of their democratic liberties. They invest all their power in their democratic demagogue, who, in turn, becomes corrupted by the power and becomes a tyrant with a small entourage of his supporters for protection and absolute control of his people.
edit on 30-6-2016 by Zimnydran because: update

edit on 30-6-2016 by Zimnydran because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

This is silly. The reasons that the amendment processes were written into the Constitution were well documented.
#1. They wanted to secure the support of the Anti-Federalists
#2 They knew a rigid Constitution would not stand up to future unknown issues and needed to be flexible in order to meet future needs

Number two is exactly my point. It was applicable & worked at the time, then it did not. It was reworked to be suitable.


Then how can it be outdated? If it has a mechanism built right it to correct/modify itself as needed, that sounds very to the point and right up to speed.

Now if THE PEOPLE don't care to use that mechanism and change things, but would rather try and circumvent the document that is a completely separate issue.

Case in point the 2nd Amendment. It say just what it says. We are allowed any arms we wish to keep. Some people don't like that, but instead of holding a convention and changing the Constitution. They try to add restrictions and loopholes. Why? Because both sides are worried about what may happen if a convention was held on the subject. If we added a 28th Amendment that clarified that "not infringed" means we could have anything we wanted the Liberals would roll over dead, IF we added one that bans almost everything then the Conservatives would do the same.

(In all reality I think the Liberals would be the one to lose on this. I personally would agree to one that banned WMDs for personnel use and left everything else free as long as you were a legal citizen and not a felon.
) (Of course before long an AR15 would be an "Assault WMD")



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The problem is that the 2nd amendment is not very effective if you have to look to outside sources for definitions and clarifications.

The 2nd states that the right of the people to carry arms, shall not be infringed. Well, if you or I disagree with any part of the National Firearms Act, any enforcement of that act could be considered an infringement. The constitution does not say right to keep and bear arms, in accordance with the NFA.

See where this is going?


NFA has several times been brought up as an illegal law.

United States v. Miller


1 The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2 The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3 The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

Lets look at this:

1. NFA was a tax NOT a restriction?
2. If it is built and used in one sate it does not fall under the NFA?
3. SCOTUS ruled 2nd applied to ownership of military-type arms? So we SHOULD have AR15s?-



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Of course, you have to take the statement completely out of context in order to fuel your hatred. His statement is an answer to the question: "Why don't law schools hire professors with more practical experience?


I think law schools should be hiring a higher percentage of lawyers with significant practical experience. I think, for example, of Benjamin Kaplan at Harvard Law School, who went into law-teaching after 14 years in practice. There used to be many like that; there are many fewer now, especially at the leading law schools.

On a different subject, I worry that law professors are too respectful of the Supreme Court, in part perhaps because they don't want to spoil the chances of their students to obtain Supreme Court clerkships. I think the Supreme Court is at a nadir. The justices are far too uniform in background, and I don’t think there are any real stars among them; the last real star, Robert Jackson, died more than 60 years ago. I regard the posthumous encomia for Scalia as absurd. Especially those of Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow and Justice Elena Kagan.

And on another note about academia and practical law, 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 (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). 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.

In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.


What he actually said.[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Does Posner say that law students should not study the Constitution at all? No, he says that it would be a waste of time spending decades studying constitutional minutiae and trivia at the expense of practical experience. Will studying the Constitution help you settle a property line dispute? Help you file a class action suit? A patent infringement claim?

Most lawyers get the drift of Constitutional principles in High School Civics class... why spend another two years in law school rehashing them when you can focus on more practical matters?

Do you agree or disagree: the Supreme court is forging a body of common law based on current concerns, rather than 18th Century ones? Do you think the Founders would have allowed Boston Whaling Limited to give unlimited funds to a gubernatorial candidate on the basis that the Whaling Company, as a limited liability corporation, was a human being and therefore has a right to "free speech" guaranteed by the First Amendment?

You may now resume your reactionary hate campaign.
edit on 30-6-2016 by DJW001 because: Edit to polish style.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

yeah, I saw this garbage yesterday or the day before.

Having been a paralegal in the JAG Corps for the Army, I take major offense to jackass judges like this. He opted to take the path of being a federal judge without force or coercion (presumably), and he opted to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Where the f**k has the sense of duty gone in public servants? I'm not talking about your low-level tax-return reviewer or the DMV driving tester, but people in high office or position who have a great influence on the course of our nation? A federal judge better damn well have massive respect and understanding of the Constitution, or they need to GTFOff of the bench on which they're sitting their ignorant ass.

THIS is why our judicial system is so screwed to hell. I hope another judge bashes him in the face with a Black's Law Dictionary--those things are heavy. Maybe that will knock some sense into him.

Ass clown.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

The question to which he is responding is irrelevant. He still did say the things that he did, and broadening the context does not change what he meant.

It is ignorant to the nth-degree for a federal judge to say that studying the Constitution is a waste of time. And for you to imply that 'getting the drift of the Constitution in high school' is plenty of understanding for a professional lawyer is absurdity at its finest.

I guess that economists don't need to study different economic theories since high school econ covers that enough to get the gist.

I guess my high school art classes negated my need to go to art school--I should have gotten the gist of my profession from that.

I suppose that tractor-trailer drivers don't need to go to truck-driving school, since they got the gist of driving when they received their license in high school.

Firefighters shouldn't really have to train and pass any sort of course to become a firefighter--they got the gist of how to put out a fire by blowing out candles on their birthday as kids.

Why did I have to train for marksmanship in the military when I and nearly everyone else has shot a water pistol or fake gun before--I had the gist of how to shoot.

Why does journalism school even exist when everyone gets the gist of how to talk by the time that they're 5 years old.

Need I go on?

Getting "the drift" of something does not make you an expert. Lawyers and judges both need to be experts on the laws that govern their profession, and that includes the Constitution at the crux of it all.

I pity the fool that hires a lawyer or has to go in front of a judge who is not a relative expert on the Constitution.


Do you agree or disagree: the Supreme court is forging a body of common law based on current concerns, rather than 18th Century ones?


I know that this was not directed at me, but I do agree with that assessment, but not with the noted problem. The reason that this is happening is not because of a lack of practical experience or that these judges may have spent too much time studying the Constitution and the intent of the writer(s) who drafted it--it's ideology, pure and simple.

Many, if not most, of our modern-day judges and justices lack the impartiality with which they are mandated to sit on the bench. If our judges would just see every case as an individual challenge to the Constitution (or whatever other laws that govern the case at hand) and absolve their concern over a broader ideological agenda, I'm quite certain that all concerns over "forging a common law based on current concerns" would be negated.


edit on 30-6-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
While the Constitution is great and all, there's really no reason to adhere to it as an ironclad doctrine as if it was handed down from God.

bold mine

And that's a major problem for many, as they do believe it was handed down by God.


...it's quite striking that the seminar, which begins at 8:30 a.m., takes until 1:30 to get to the actual Constitution. That's because we have to learn the basic truth about the Constitution: God wrote it. It comes directly from the government instituted by Moses when he led the Children of Israel out of Egypt. That system was re-instituted in England around 450 A.D. by the Anglo-Saxon rulers Hengist and Horsa. The Founding Fathers, led by Thomas Jefferson, copied the Constitution directly from the "ancient constitution" of the Anglo-Saxons.
.......

Lurking behind these words is the idea that the Constitution is not only a religious document, but a tribal one--written by one kind of people, white Anglo-Saxons, and enshrining their superiority. The Constitution is "ours"; immigrants, non-Christians, Jews, Presidents with funny names are here in "our" country by "our" sufferance, and the time has come to take "our" country back. None of this is quite said; but it hangs in the air. "The divisions are going to become greater and greater," Lester Pearce warns the students at Our Savior's Way. "It's not between the haves and the have-nots. It's between the haves and the entitled.


All Patriots 'Know' That Moses Wrote the Constitution

As for the seminar presenter, Lester Pearce, he wants to make America great again.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The constitution is not required to conform to the times. The times are required to conform to the constitution. Hence it being a living breathing document. Besides, they are called amendments after all. Legal framework for consensus among Union members can be had to amend the constitution.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.--Lysander Spooner


I'd like to pretend that this judge is a closest anarchist (in the same vain as Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, or Karl Hess) but he most likely just wants to increase government, not decrease it.
edit on 30-6-2016 by LordSatan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Not one person could sit down and develop a better document with the bill of rights that would protect everyone. Sad that the Marxists have so infiltrated our country. This judge should recuse himself from further legal matters.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Yes, because killing someone totally solves everything. Can you detect the absolute sarcasm dripping from my comment? No? Read it again, then.
Moreover, you are suggesting killing a FEDERAL JUDGE. Have you lost your #ing mind?



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I think a lot of you in this thread need to take a break.

You're foaming at the mouth over a federal judge suggesting that lawyers should be spending less time studying the constitution and spending more time practicing in their field.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

NO, what that ACTUALLY means is that in order to limit them, which is INFRINGING, you need to follow the process that was given in order to do so and pass an amendment that would give you the authority to place a limit(infringe) on them.

What they have done is ignore it and it is TREASONOUS...

Jaden



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

No, people are foaming at the mouth about those we have GIVEN, yes we GIVE them their authority, authority over us with a singular mandate to support the constitution first and foremost in their endeavors is openly stating that not only does HE just ignore it, but that EVERYONE should just ignore/not learn about/do whatever the # they want, INSTEAD of following the mandate that those who GIVE them their authority has placed on them.

No, we will NOT take a break, nor do we need to, and in fact, more people need to be up in arms about this, both figuratively AND literally.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: xuenchen

Not one person could sit down and develop a better document with the bill of rights that would protect everyone. Sad that the Marxists have so infiltrated our country. This judge should recuse himself from further legal matters.


The Constitution wasn't designed by one person either. It was a work of compromise and not one person involved in it thought it would last 20 years much less 200. In a modern context the Constitution is deeply flawed. The rights listed in it aren't comprehensive enough, it doesn't protect the public from corporations, it doesn't separate the public and private sectors, it encourages long legislation rather than succinct laws, and perhaps it's biggest failure (related to the previous point) is that it has allowed for an out of control justice system, which this judge is very aware of and was commenting on.

There are many aspects of the Constitution that could use improvement.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Good for you, does not change my point the document has no expiration date. He is only judge, he is not permitted to disregard the law. Unless a convention is held to amend it, as it sits is the letter of the law and not open to opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join