Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Nyiah
If you're objective enough to think about the constitution without rosey glasses, it's already been determined a couple of times to be outdated. Hence multiple amendments to fix outdated parts.

That fact alone should tell you that it can and will be, at any given point in time, outdated with regards to any social period it's re-examined in.

At best, it's really a tweakable suggestion list, not a gold-clad guide book.

No, it's not outdated. It has the amendment process in it which is what keeps it from being outdated.

In a roundabout way, you kind of agreed with me there. To be amended, it must be determined to be outdated in the first place. And that determination can come at any time.

a reply to: Nyiah

He said all the Amendments are garbage too.

originally posted by: Nyiah
If you're objective enough to think about the constitution without rosey glasses, it's already been determined a couple of times to be outdated. Hence multiple amendments to fix outdated parts.

That fact alone should tell you that it can and will be, at any given point in time, outdated with regards to any social period it's re-examined in.

At best, it's really a tweakable suggestion list, not a gold-clad guide book.

Exactly. The Founders knew the constitution would have to be tweeked from time to time and that is why they included the process' in which to do it.

Some people are just stuck in the dark ages of intellectual thought, though something like this is fairly elementary.

a reply to: neo96

What does Hitler have to do with this?

Anyway, you are the last person to lecture anyone on constitutional principles. You believe the 2nd amendment right depends on one's religion.

Spare me the drama.

Well , Reagan did appoint Posner. But that was 35 years ago, and Posner's views have changed . Perhaps it is time to amend that Constitution that Posner holds in such contempt and limit ALL those seated on a Federal Bench to a single 10 year term?

a reply to: Nyiah

I think the Amendments are additions that were 'missing' from the USC.

Not necessarily changes to existing language.

Like the 16th for example.

a reply to: Nyiah

Yes, but what he says and what you say are very different. He thinks the whole thing is garbage. You think it can need to have things added to it from time to time which suggest you still approve of the framework.

a reply to: introvert

Some people are just stuck in the dark ages of intellectual thought, though something like this is fairly elementary.

Speaking for yourself there ?

Do you really want to live under a system where by WHICHEVER majority happens to be ruling at the time RIGHTS can be voted away by a mere 51 people?

I don't.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

What does Hitler have to do with this?

Anyway, you are the last person to lecture anyone on constitutional principles. You believe the 2nd amendment right depends on one's religion.

Spare me the drama.

Said the poster of this:

I'd say he actually has a point.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Nyiah

I think the Amendments are additions that were 'missing' from the USC.

Not necessarily changes to existing language.

Like the 16th for example.

That's still proposing that the constitution was incorrect, incomplete, and poorly thought out the first time around. Even if they (the Articles) were applicable at the time of writing, they were found to be necessary to be added to, clarified, and worded better. That original version became legitimately outdated.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Nyiah
If you're objective enough to think about the constitution without rosey glasses, it's already been determined a couple of times to be outdated. Hence multiple amendments to fix outdated parts.

That fact alone should tell you that it can and will be, at any given point in time, outdated with regards to any social period it's re-examined in.

At best, it's really a tweakable suggestion list, not a gold-clad guide book.

Exactly. The Founders knew the constitution would have to be tweeked from time to time and that is why they included the process' in which to do it.

Some people are just stuck in the dark ages of intellectual thought, though something like this is fairly elementary.

Kinda like the bible needs teeked now and then to make God words fit to modern situations.

This judge should be kicked off the bench immediately. He has no business being anywhere near a court of law.

Anyway, you are the last person to lecture anyone on constitutional principles. You believe the 2nd amendment right depends on one's religion

And people that is an outright LIE which is in violation of ATS TC.

I don't go around PUSHING no fly,no buy.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Nyiah

Yes, but what he says and what you say are very different. He thinks the whole thing is garbage. You think it can need to have things added to it from time to time which suggest you still approve of the framework.

I guess. He's entitled to his opinion though, there's an amendment for that. I think it's pretty amusing that people don't think he should have one. Kinda goes against the whole thing they support in the first place, doesn't it?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Some people are just stuck in the dark ages of intellectual thought, though something like this is fairly elementary.

Speaking for yourself there ?

Do you really want to live under a system where by WHICHEVER majority happens to be ruling at the time RIGHTS can be voted away by a mere 51 people?

I don't.

See. You don't understand what is needed to change the constitution.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

What does Hitler have to do with this?

Anyway, you are the last person to lecture anyone on constitutional principles. You believe the 2nd amendment right depends on one's religion.

Spare me the drama.

Said the poster of this:

I'd say he actually has a point.

What is your point?

originally posted by: introvert

Anyway, you are the last person to lecture anyone on constitutional principles. You believe the 2nd amendment right depends on one's religion.

You're mixing the 1st with the 2nd.

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

Oh yeah. I've read there are countries that periodically update their constitution.

I'm one who supports this.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Nyiah

I think the Amendments are additions that were 'missing' from the USC.

Not necessarily changes to existing language.

Like the 16th for example.

That's still proposing that the constitution was incorrect, incomplete, and poorly thought out the first time around. Even if they (the Articles) were applicable at the time of writing, they were found to be necessary to be added to, clarified, and worded better. That original version became legitimately outdated.

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