It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It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: 18
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:07 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Exactly... The constitution is an enumeration of the powers and restrictions granted to government by The People. As is stated in the DOI, the government derives its' powers from the consent of the governed.

The constitution is the enumeration of that consent and provides the only means under which that consent can be changed. That is why every oath of office requires a commitment to uphold that document.

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

posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:21 PM
Let me add to the above. All laws that ANY level of government passes must conform to the constitution. To say that we should not bother to learn about the constitution because it is outdated is to lack a fundamental understanding of how a democractic republic is designed to function.

If we fail to call out government when they ignore it as we have done for over a hundred years, we are failing as citizenry and it eventually leads to only one inevitable conclusion when looking at history... Totalitarianism and revolution.

I, personally, would like to avoid that, but it is essential that we start calling out government on this type of BS to avoid that eventuality.


posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:30 PM
a reply to: introvert

WHAT? That is NOT what the judge was talking about. He was talking about the consitution being outdated and that it shouldn't be studied but ignored.

If he thinks the constitution is outdated, he should be talking about helping with the process of amending it.

When slavery was being removed, they didn't say, oh the cnostitution is outdated, the founders didn't see the necessity to prevent slavery so let's just ignore the constutiton and not bother to study it.

They passed a friggin amendment like they should have.

No, what this is and other laws that have been passed without even considering the constitutionality of them is government realizing they wouldn't have the consent of the governed to do what they wanted but also knowing that the people aren't likely to stand up and do anything about them ignoring it.


posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:46 PM
a reply to: Phage

B is the answer, and they gave the means for it to change as society did. It is the governement that evinces a design of complete despotism that has decided that instead of following the guidelines that were given for them to change it, to just ignore it, marginilize it, and minimize it's importance and necessity for our form of government.

By doing so, they have also managed to marginilize the importance that all of the government's power is derived from the consent of the governed and anything that doesn't conform to the enumeration of powers and restrictions placed on government is actually treason of the first order.


posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 06:01 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

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.

How do you "study the Constitution?" How do you apply it to divorce law, for example?

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

Do economists keep reading "The Wealth of Nations" over and over again, expecting it to solve the myriad problems they face in creating fiscal policy? No? Why not? Because there is more to economics than a single document, there is an entire body of knowledge derived from practical experience. That is what Posner is talking about.

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.

In order to improve your technique, do you keep re-reading "Point and Line to Plane" because it is the source of all artistic knowledge? Or do you try to acquire practical experience, as Posner suggests.

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.

You keep making my point for me. Spending years studying the Constitution is like spending years studying "The Rules of the Road" instead of actually getting experience driving.

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.

Rather than go to the academy, they should spend their entire life blowing out birthday candles, right? After all, that's what you are doing when you keep re-reading the Constitution instead of actually studying and practicing law.

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.

You're right: all you needed to do is spend years re-reading the manual.

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

You have truly hammered my point home: you do not learn and grow by reading the same thing over and over like a religious fanatic; you learn by broadening your studies and gaining practical experience.

Need I go on?

Only if you still haven't figured it out for yourself.

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.

What, exactly does the constitution say about using GPS tracking data as evidence in court? Zero, zip, nada. There is, however, a body of precedents that are used in forming judgements. These are what working lawyers need to spend years studying in order to ply their trade successfully. "constitutionolatry" recently gave us the absurd argument wherein Supreme Court justices had to invent a hypothetical situation in which an eighteenth century constable conceals himself underneath a coach to gather evidence. The Constitution makes it clear that there can be no search of private property without a warrant. Period. Of course, the "Constitutional Experts"on the Supreme Court don't seem to understand that, based on Utah v. Strieff.

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.

And an expert on the Constitution can get you out of a speeding ticket how?

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.

That may be, but given that is the case, should lawyers study a document that will not help them win their clients' cases, or should they deal practically with the situation as it is?

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.

I respectfully disagree. Studying what Judge Scalia himself called a "dead document" is not going to find solutions to contemporary problems. Incidentally, where was the torch and pitchfork mob when Scalia said "the Constitution is dead, dead, dead?"
edit on 30-6-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 10:56 AM
The "constitutional fundamentalism" prescribed by many has roots in the books by Skousen. from the wiki source below..."In 1971, Skousen founded a non-profit educational foundation, The Freeman Institute, which sought to provide students a place to read both sides of any political issue from original sources. In 1982, the institute became the National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS), a national organization headquartered in Malta, Idaho."

W. Cleon Skousen wikipedia

...Skousen ...supporters believe that their fundamental values are under attack. ... “the world is watching as the United States crumbles from within, enemies maneuver beyond our borders and the cornerstone of the country — the Constitution — is subverted in a political quagmire.”....advocates of foreign, anti - American ideas have taken over the federal government, threatening to displace true American values, and the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. ....argue that the Obama Administration is “attacking” America, that he is “anti - American,” and that he is seeking to undermine basic American values. The vehemence which Tea Party members characterize the Obama Administration’s agenda as “un - American,” “socialist,” or “communist” — or, perhaps even worse, “European” — easily matches Skousen’s own anti - communism.

Skousen explain[s] contemporary history through a common narrative in which the Founding Fathers adopted a Constitution that embodies a set of sacred and eternal principles for American government. The principles adopted at the time of national creation encompass what Skousen understand to be the central values and characteristics of American national culture—devotion to God, limited government, free markets, personal property, and individualism.

In recent years, these fundamental principles have come under attack by forces deeply antagonistic to American values, and the nation has lost sight of its foundational principles..... solution to this perceived crisis...a return to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers

The narrative that lies at the heart of Skousen’s books ... bears a strong resemblance to the narratives propounded by religious fundamentalists. Although use of the term “fundamentalist” can be controversial because it is sometimes used pejoratively or dismissively, sociologists of religion have generally embraced the term to describe religious movements that arise in opposition to elements of modernity that believers perceive threaten their core identities. Notwithstanding the many differences that exist among movements characterized as fundamentalist — Sunni fundamentalists, the Haredim, Shiite fundamentalists, and Protestant fundamentalists — they bear common traits, including:

(1) the identification of a set of fundamental values that adherents believe are under attack or have been abandoned;

(2) the belief that these fundamental values originated in a mythic era and are embodied in a sacred text or tradition;

(3) the perception that the current attack on the group’s fundamental values represents an existential crisis for the community of believers;

(4) a commitment to restoring the fundamental values as the movement’s central goal; and

(5) a Manichean world view that pits supporters of the fundamental principles against demonized enemies.

pdf source
edit on 1-7-2016 by desert because: add bold

posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 09:47 PM

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.

Unfortunately, when President Hillary takes over she will be picking the new SCOTUS Justices.

You can bet the Democratic Party traitors will amend the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of Speech and the right to bear arms? Gone.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 04:08 AM

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
He would have to be one stupid POS to say something like that and paint a big bullsye on his temple like that.

Judges like this are WHY we have the 2nd.

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:08 PM
a reply to: DJW001

I"ll answer a couple of your idiotic postulations... Hmmm should you reread the rules of the road or go out and get experience driving.. well, if you got your idea of what's acceptable on the road based on experience and what EVERYONE on the road is doing or what best gets you from A to B, which is the equivalent of what you are suggesting, then you absolutely should go back and reread the rules of the road.

If you are mixing blue and green hoping to get purple, then you should absolutely go back and study the color wheel in art class.

If you are passing laws and using the practice of law that is counter to the constitution, then you should absolutely go back and study the constitution, not suggest ignoring it and going out and practicing law without studying

This is just common sense.

You don't suggest carrying the bowling ball down the aisle and keeping your fingers in the ball holes while knocking down each pin one by one, so don't suggest practicing law without ensuring that the law you are practicing is legal by it's ultimate guide/rule book.


top topics

<< 15  16  17   >>

log in