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.

 

Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, Says Women Do NOT Have Constitutional Protection!!

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I think somebody needs to do a pee test
on Scalia to see what the heck he's been
smoking.




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Well, it is my contention that the Constitution is the original set of laws bestowed upon us. A part of which, gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret those laws. You are in such the minority in your opinion...good luck changing things now.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


But that doesn't mean that the interpretation governed by the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter is correct in their interpretation.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Well, it is my contention that the Constitution is the original set of laws bestowed upon us. A part of which, gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret those laws. You are in such the minority in your opinion...good luck changing things now.




Evidently you are reading a different document than I am.

The word interpret doesnt appear anywhere in my copy of the Constitution

How about yours?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


But that doesn't mean that the interpretation governed by the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter is correct in their interpretation.


Right, and it doesn't mean it's incorrect either.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
The 14th amendment says any person, unless Judge Scalia would like to hold arguments that women are not people.


Actually, in Canada, before 1985, women were not fully considered people... Rape was classified as a property crime, and women belonged to their husbands therefore could technically not be raped by them...

Women have come a long way in a short period of time...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
In a way, I kind of think he might be right.
otherwise, why in the world did they fight about passing the ERA so hard?
You'd have thought that either the feminsts would have realized, that hey, we have all rights under the constitution...or those opposed would have figured that the stupid women just didn't realize that they had the rights and went ahead and passed it just to shut them up!



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Well, it is my contention that the Constitution is the original set of laws bestowed upon us. A part of which, gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret those laws. You are in such the minority in your opinion...good luck changing things now.




Evidently you are reading a different document than I am.

The word interpret doesnt appear anywhere in my copy of the Constitution

How about yours?


The word "interpret" need not be in the wording. Anytime one reads something, one is interpreting the wording based upon their comprehension of the phrasing of the words. I imagine that, as you read this post, you are making an interpretation of my words.

If the founding fathers wanted the constitution to be "interpreted" in a very specific way, then why not define each and every word in a supplemental glossary? Why not refer to a specific dictionary to define all terms?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

The word interpret doesnt appear anywhere in my copy of the Constitution

How about yours?


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Link

What do you think Judicial Power is?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man


The word "interpret" need not be in the wording. Anytime one reads something, one is interpreting the wording based upon their comprehension of the phrasing of the words. I imagine that, as you read this post, you are making an interpretation of my words.

If the founding fathers wanted the constitution to be "interpreted" in a very specific way, then why not define each and every word in a supplemental glossary? Why not refer to a specific dictionary to define all terms?


A better question:
If they meant for SCOTUS to be the final interpreter of the Constitution, why not include that in the text?

There is no need to interpret words, as each has their own definition. You can assign meaning to any phrase you wish, but the moment your meaning differs from the actual definition of the word, you have failed.

Interpretation is only for those who are incapable of understanding something.


edit on 4-1-2011 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Judicial power is to enforce, or nullify based on Constitutional grounds, the law as written.

A judiciary that "interprets" the law acts as a legislature at the point when they can assign their own meanings to statutes.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
What I find odd, is the ideology that the US constitution doesn't evolve with the times. When the constitution was made, they didn't have many of the things that exist today, they didn't have all the particular situations to look at and say "hmmm, maybe this will be a problem in 200 years"...

In Canada, for example, our constitution changes with the times and the way people see things in the country... If the population trend at the time is liberal on a certain subject, then the constitutional objection is more likely to be accepted, and vice versa... Law interpretation needs to evolve with time.

Another example, is the right to bear arms. Back then it was to protect the country from British Loyalists and other outside forces from invading and destroying the US government. It was difficult then to mobilize armies and inform everyone of what was going on so the people had the responsibility to help. Today, this noble ideology of protecting country, has become a citizen vs. citizen vs. terrorist vs. criminal vs. government... This right to bear arms has stayed, but has evolved into another reason to exist.

The same should be for women's rights. We have evolved sociologically and we recognize women's equality to men. Why shouldn't the constitution be interpreted with today's mores to reflect that? It makes no sense... Why waste time and money on legislating obvious things instead of working on solving other problems that require attention?

My 0.02$



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
There is no need to interpret words, as each has their own definition.


Many words have multiple meanings.

Nonetheless, the constitution is not a list of words. Like it or not, when words get grouped into these pesky, complicated things called sentences, phrases and paragraphs, then the need arises to interpret the meaning of them.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


And though your Constitution in Canada changes with the " times " as you say, look where that landed ya! Massive infringement on your rights far worse than we are experiencing here in the US.

And that's the problem, everyone's interpretation of " words" and not fully understanding the definition of those words becomes the clear culprit in wrongful interpretation.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Perhaps for simpletons, but educated people are perfectly capable of understanding the Constitution as it is written.

Maybe that explains why Congress has no clue as to what it actually means. They are merely a group of retards.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Judiciary-


The branch of government that is endowed with the authority to interpret and apply the law, adjudicate legal disputes, and otherwise administer justice.


Link

If absolutely no interpretation was necessary, we wouldn't need a judiciary. If you can find me a valid link anywhere that describes the duties of a judge that doesn't include interpretation of the law, I'd like to see it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



edit on 1/4/2011 by yeahright because: Fix code



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Kinda hard to confuse black and white writing's. But it would appear for some, that reading comprehension was not their strongest suit.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


..educated people are perfectly capable of understanding the Constitution as it is written.


Including Supreme Court Justices.

You know the SC has been "interpreting" the constitution since the first president was in office. Don't you think that, if that was in contradiction to the wishes of the founding fathers, then they would have stood up and said so....perhaps throw out the SC and start over with more precise guidelines for the judicial branch? Yet, they didn't. I wonder why?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


So what are people supposed to do when the constitution doesn't provide for situations that are happening in later times?

Reading the constitution without interpretation is impossible, as is reading any law. For example, let's take the 2nd amendment:



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


In time we realized that people who are felons and have weapons charges are best not to have them in the future. The constitution was interpreted, in a way that when people use these weapons for wrongful purposes, they lose their right to have them...

The same goes with women's rights. Times change, so do people's rights!!



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Because the justices do not have the authority to over rule the Congress, nor do they have the authority to establish a new Constitution, they are to enforce the written law. Nothing more. Leaving out interpretation. The law is the law..period.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join