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.

 

Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

“...the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

One of Obama's better quotes (I believe that was Obama anyhow)

There is nothing wrong with working toward justice for all. After all the Constitution does not confer rights but instead places restrictions on government conduct and action

We should just be realistic in that working toward justice for all implies assuring enumerated rights (and non-enumerated rights) are protected and defended. For instance, you can't attack free speech or gun rights simply because you don't like certain things folks say or the fact that some feel they need firearms for defense/livelihood/etc

I am a Trump voter. There is also nothing in your post I disagree with or oppose




posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
RBG has some flakey ideas.

Most of the constitutions in the world's democracies are BASED ON the US Constitution.


Yup. Too bad they all left out the right to freedom of speech.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

They don’t.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
She believes we should look to the constitution of South Africa as a model for governance.

I believe each Supreme Court Justice should be forced to face a vote of confidence every year or two.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I wouldn't advise any foreign country to base their constitution on ours, either. I'd advise they base it on their own wants & goals, not ours. It's a little cocky & frankly, insidious, to insinuate nobody can come up with a better one.

Edit: And by better one, I don't mean better than ours, I mean better for THEM.
edit on 7/7/2018 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable

I don't k ow what the solution is other than to appoint judges who follow the law



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
I wouldn't advise any foreign country to base their constitution on ours, either. I'd advise they base it on their own wants & goals, not ours. It's a little cocky & frankly, insidious, to insinuate nobody can come up with a better one.

Edit: And by better one, I don't mean better than ours, I mean better for THEM.


Did you get a chance to actually look at the SA Constitution? I linked it above.

It's an ... interesting animal. Reads kind of like an employee manual.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Marbury v Madison of 1803 is one of the checkpoints I identify with things going wrong or against intentions of founders.

The laws should simply be declared unconstutional and subject remanded back to congress instead of the Court usurping the legislative responsibility.

RBG is prime example of a judicial activist who should've run for congressional office instead of being SCOTUS member.

IMHO she has no business ruling about something she demonstrated no firm belief in.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I linked what Ginsberg actually said above. She didn't say she "didn't believe" in our Constitution.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:51 PM
link   
You would end up defeating the purpose of the judicial branch. To maintain their independence from outside influences the founding fathers made it so they dont have to worry about being elected. And Removal requires a vote from Congress through impeachment proceedings. The logic there is simple unless they did something that seriously violates the law they are free from oversight.



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




One of Obama's better quotes (I believe that was Obama anyhow)


"I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice."


Theodore Parker


A century later, Martin Luther King, Jr. paraphrased these words in a prepared statement he read in 1956 following the conclusion of the Montgomery bus boycott.[62] He would later use a similar paraphrasing to great effect in two famous speeches and his final sermon: "How Long, Not Long", delivered in March 1965 on the steps of the Alabama State Capitol;[63] "Where Do We Go From Here?", delivered in August 1967 to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference;[64][65] and his "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution" sermon, delivered in March 1968 at the National Cathedral.[66] In each instance, King's paraphrase included the words "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice".



The new beige rug chosen for President Barack Obama's remodeled Oval Office in August 2010, was bordered by five quotations, two of which (by Lincoln and King) are inspired by the writings of Parker, as noted above.



I am a Trump voter. There is also nothing in your post I disagree with or oppose

Thank you for that :-)

I am not a Trump supporter - glad to know you


edit on 7/8/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wardaddy454

They don’t.


Have an explicit right that protects speech from government? Yes, you're right.



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wardaddy454

They don’t.


Have an explicit right that protects speech from government? Yes, you're right.


Your statement is incorrect. The constitutions of many countries provide for freedom of speech and expression.

For example, the SA Constitution (linked above) makes it more explicit than the US Constitution.



16. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Agreed.

Largely due to having to pick the politically expedient judge, rather than the right judge. That comes down to us.

Oh, he's going to pick such and such, who is going to reverse Roe v Wade, or reaffirm same. Can't have that! Then you get political grandstanding such as Edward Kennedy during the Bork hearings.



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
That comes down to us.



99.99% of our political issues are resolved right there IF we would work together in ever growing groups and deny the age-old strategy of "divide-and-conquer."



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wardaddy454

They don’t.


Have an explicit right that protects speech from government? Yes, you're right.


Your statement is incorrect. The constitutions of many countries provide for freedom of speech and expression.

For example, the SA Constitution (linked above) makes it more explicit than the US Constitution.



16. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.




Am I? Everything I've read does not say "Shall make no law" like ours does, just simply that you have the right. Which leave people quite open to "you have the right to freedom of expression, until we don't like what you're expressing. Have some jail time." Quite the distinction don't you think?




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join