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.

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Talks Constitution, Claims S.Afica's Constitution Better

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


She's a supreme court judge. She doesn't get to have an opinion. Sorry.

If she doesn't like the constitution which she's supposed to defend, well then she should be fired.

This is no ordinary person you are a talking about, she's a SCOTUS JUDGE.
That is the most stupid thing I have ever read.




posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Canada's constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. Rights are rights, not privileges that can be dissolved at any time by our corrupt government. Just look at what they have done to us under bills like C36, 51 and 52 amongst others. In addition, apparently our idiot politicians signed ACTA in October, no referendum, no acid test of the populace, just "let's screw all the citizens." Yeah, what a great constitution and @ssclown government. But, what would anyone expect from politicians that get flown around by serial rapists and killers and an intelligence agency that couldn't find their hands if they were sitting on them.

In the case of using South Africa as an example in the OP, well, does that judge know that it is now illegal to hire white folk there, right? Does that judge know about BEE and AA in South Africa and the quota systems that disadvantage minorities in all sectors of private and public enterprise and education? Does that judge know that the SA government by law cannot be investigated by the citizens, the judiciary or the journalists, right? Does that judge know that the government has passed laws that allow government personnel to commit criminal acts with virtual impunity, right?

Or maybe that judge doesn't keep up on world events? But more importantly WTH are they shooting their mouth off in the first place about something they obviously don't understand?

I don't think it's a good idea to change the US constitution, otherwise you'll just get the crap we have in Canada, South Africa or some other third world country controlled by an evil, little-minded tyrant. You'd just end up with the doctrine of government levied privilege written on toilet paper that can be changed at any time and used by any 'ole fool politician to wipe ITS @ss.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
The importance and value of any Constitution establishing a governing body lies in its treatment of natural and unalienable rights. The South African Constitution has a Bill of Rights but unlike the language used by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution for the United States of America, the language in the South African Bill of Rights reads more as a grant of rights by government, rather than an express prohibition of government regarding certain rights.

One of the first noticeable differences between the South African and the United States Bill of Rights is that the South African version comes with a "table of non-derogable rights. Derogable, by definition, are those "rights" that may be limited under extreme circumstances. Perhaps this is why Justice Ginsberg admires the South African Constitution over the one she took an oath of office to protect and defend.

Another glaring difference, although not so noticeable if you're not looking for it, is the lack of acknowledgment of the right of People to keep and bear arms.

Also missing - unless I somehow missed this - is a declaration similar to the U.S. Constitutions Ninth Amendment making clear that enumerated rights are not the only rights retained by the People.

Of course, the South African Constitution uses the word "democracy" gleefully and liberally all over that document, and this word cannot be found once in the U.S. Constitution.

Just looking at the South African Bill of Rights it is clear that this document allows government much more wiggle room when it comes to the abrogation and derogation of any individuals rights than does the Constitution for the United States of America. Perhaps this is why Justice Ginsberg admires the South African Constitution so much and is why she feels compelled to dismiss the very Constitution she took and oath of office to protect and defend.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Thank You for an astute clarification of the differences between the South African Constitution and the Constitution our Founding Fathers painstakingly drew up.

What disturbs me, is Ginsburg even making constitutional suggestions to any Nation other than the United States. In an official capacity no less. This is not part of her job. Should not be part of job. Is unconstitutional by her very actions.

Des



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 

I just don't understand how Ginsburg has the right to tell other nations to disregard our Constitution, when she, herself has been appointed to a powerful position to uphold the U.S.Constitution. Conflict of interest comes to mind.

An impeachable offense I think...

Des


She has the "right" because she, along with you and I, are protected from her Government and possible persecution in speaking out about her personal views -- regardless of her position held within the United States Government.

In case you have been under a rock since the late 18th Century -- the Alien and Sedition Acts was repealed and found unconstitutional. But I question you; what law has she broken in which the House would initiate the impeachment process? Has she committed treason? Bribery (hell, they would need to be wary of throwing stones in glass houses with that one!)?, some sort of High Crime? Or maybe speaking freely should be a misdemeanor so we can impeach her.

But I think the bigger focus should be on other words she uttered; words that I believe are disingenuous. The reason she spoke out that models of newer constitutions should be looked at because the United States Constitution's "...exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans."

I would ask Justice Ginsburg to specifically point out the Articles in which a direct exclusion of those groups occurred. I know, we have the black-mark 3/5ths Compromise (which was amended) and other perceived exclusionary occurrences were not because of the Constitution but because of the societal norms of the day.

Not in one spot does the Constitution exclude a woman, Native American, black, green or blue person from enjoying the protections afforded from the Government or their ability to participate in self-governance (even the 3/5ths Compromise recognized for either tax-purposes or representation counts; slaves and Native Americans). That wasn't the purpose or scope of which the Constitution set out to obtain and achieve.

This doesn't mean that the added amendments -- 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments are not warranted.

I don't much care for the Honorable Ginsburg; but in no way would I ever call for her impeachment over speaking freely her mind. That is a dangerous path to open up.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Why does she have to love the Constitution and see it as the best in order to defend it in the Supreme Court?

She's voicing her opinions. Everything in America isn't the greatest afterall.


I'd think our founding fathers would have a bit more to roll around over. I don't think one Justice's view that our Constitution could take a bit of good from anothers is a big deal at all. Corporations are people, my friend.

It's been raitified before. It isn't gospel which cannot change. That's the beauty of it. Why be upset because she sees benefits that others have?
edit on 6-2-2012 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





I would ask Justice Ginsburg to specifically point out the Articles in which a direct exclusion of those groups occurred. I know, we have the black-mark 3/5ths Compromise (which was amended) and other perceived exclusionary occurrences were not because of the Constitution but because of the societal norms of the day.

Not in one spot does the Constitution exclude a woman, Native American, black, green or blue person from enjoying the protections afforded from the Government or their ability to participate in self-governance (even the 3/5ths Compromise recognized for either tax-purposes or representation counts; slaves and Native Americans). That wasn't the purpose or scope of which the Constitution set out to obtain and achieve.


The above quote is spot on! Ginsburg has made her political beliefs and world view quite apparent with remarks such as this, and it should be quite clear that Ginsburg could give one whit about the rights of individuals. She thinks in terms of class, in terms of groups, and in terms of collectives. She wants to proudly see herself as a champion of the minority tired, poor, and huddled masses, but she could care less for the individual. What is the tragic irony of this?

There is no greater minority than the individual.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 

I just don't understand how Ginsburg has the right to tell other nations to disregard our Constitution, when she, herself has been appointed to a powerful position to uphold the U.S.Constitution. Conflict of interest comes to mind.

An impeachable offense I think...

Des


You need to get over yourself. The Constitution gives Ginsburg the right to speak her opinion, or are you anti american? Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
You need to get over yourself. The Constitution gives Ginsburg the right to speak her opinion, or are you anti american? Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.


I agree with the overall premise just not the method in which you made it. The Constitution gives nothing -- only protects her "right to speak her opinion". The Right is natural and no Government, group or individual can give you that Right as it is inherent to our being.
edit on 6-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 





The Constitution gives Ginsburg the right to speak her opinion


The Constitution does no such thing. The Constitution for the United States, with the sole exception of that most imprudent and dubious 14th Amendment, does not "give" rights. That Constitution, in the Bill of Rights particularly, expressly forbids the federal government from denying and/or disparaging rights the People have, had, and will always have regardless of what anyone say's about it.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 

I just don't understand how Ginsburg has the right to tell other nations to disregard our Constitution, when she, herself has been appointed to a powerful position to uphold the U.S.Constitution. Conflict of interest comes to mind.

An impeachable offense I think...

Des


You need to get over yourself. The Constitution gives Ginsburg the right to speak her opinion, or are you anti american? Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.


I see a big difference between personal opinion, and expressing a somewhat Socialist agenda in a political arena.

If Ginsberg is to be trusted, as a purveyor of judicial decision making on our Supreme Court. She, in my opinion, needs to not be an agent for pushing the agenda of the current administration.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
While Justice Ginsburg most assuredly does have an unalienable right to voice her opinions - and I most assuredly agree that the claim that Justice Ginsburg has no right to an "opinion" was a shamefully stupid remark that ignores the fact that Supreme Court Justices render opinions as a part of their jobs - it should be pointed out or reminded that Justice Ginsburg did take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution which grants her the authority to render legally binding opinions. It is understandable why people are upset at her remarks, and just as Ginsburg has the right to voice her opinions, so does everyone else.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...it should be pointed out or reminded that Justice Ginsburg did take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution which grants her the authority to render legally binding opinions.


Okay now we are getting to what could be a more focused discussion in regards to Justice Ginsburg's remarks.

The Oath of Office, in which all Officers of the United States must undertake is codified in U.S.C: Title 5, Section 331 and required as Section I, Article 6 of the Constitution demands.

Note: "AB" means the person's full name who is reciting the Oath


I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


The Oath of Justice, in which the Justices all recite is found in U.S.C: Title 28, Section 453 states:

Note: "XXX. XXX" is the full name of the person reciting the Oath and "XXX" is the position of Justice they are about to enter.


I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.


They not only bind themselves to supporting and defending the Constitution but to also administer Justice according to its Law and that of the United States.

But how do we define "Support and Defend"? Wouldn't that all be a manner of perspective?

Post Script:
Take for instances, I have spoken the Oath of Office twice now (don't ask me why I had to say it twice; one would think that you never release yourself from the Oath unless you specifically separated yourself from it), and I speak out against certain portions of the Constitution -- does this make me a traitor?

Does my questioning of the 17th Amendment provide means for impeachment? Understandably, I am not here on an official capacity, but the First Amendment makes no distinction between of such.
edit on 6-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: Post Script



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
a SCOTUS is sworn to uphold the constitution, to rule according to its literal definition

This does not mean they cannot have an outside opinion. If they do their job, then thats all that is required.
I can be a policeman and also think off duty that some laws are stupid. So long as I do my job, then its all good.

By her talking about other nations constitutions, while being a justice for america, she actually gives her words and influence far more credibility overseas and will not be passed off as just another american propagandist with nothing of value to say.

Traitor...anyone whom suggests other countrys have good stuff to offer also = traitor?
pretty black and white (for us or for t3h turr-ists) mindset you got there...wonder who programmed you.


She took an oath:
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
She's "On Duty", 24/7, unlike the police officer, until she resigns.
Whats more, she's on a trip underwritten by the U.S. State Department as an offical representative from the US Government. Aren't justices expected to keep their distances from the other branches to protect their perceived impartiality?
Greater legal minds than mine have a very negative opinion on her comments...



Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said, "For a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice to speak derisively about the Constitution she is sworn to uphold is distressing, to say the least. Justice Ginsburg's comments about our Constitution undermine the Supreme Court as an institution dedicated to the rule of law, as well as our founding document."

Source



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.


That 'worthless document" as you call it allows the drivel to spill from your lips, or fingers as the case may be.
Don't like it? I'm sure we can raise the funds for a one way ticket to Iran, N. Korea, Zimbabwe, etc...
We'll take odds on how long you last trashing their founding documents.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





But how do we define "Support and Defend"? Wouldn't that all be a manner of perspective?


I don't think Justice Ginsburg's remarks are any violation of her oath, but what these remarks do is give Constitutionally minded people enough cause for alarm. She had every right to speak her mind, but now that she has, people have every right to interpret her words and pass judgment on them. Because she has so willingly dismissed the Constitution she is bound to by oath of office, future decisions that hinge upon her opinion may now become suspect.

Take the South African Constitution and its insistence that health care and access to it is a right, and then pay close attention to how Ginsburg rules in our own upcoming Supreme Court consideration of "Obamacare". It is a sound prediction that Ginsburg will rule in favor of this so called "health-care" bill that presumes health care is synonymous with insurance schemes and private companies who apparently need government to use their massive force to convince people do buy their insurance schemes.

Is she honoring her oath of office if and when she rules this way, or is she honoring her personal belief that the South African Constitution is a better document than the Constitution for the United States of America? Such a question is only fair, considering her remarks. Frankly, her best bet is to rule against the "health care" bill on Constitutional grounds, just to save the integrity of the Court. Let's see what happens.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tworide

Originally posted by illuminatislave
Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.


That 'worthless document" as you call it allows the drivel to spill from your lips, or fingers as the case may be.
Don't like it? I'm sure we can raise the funds for a one way ticket to Iran, N. Korea, Zimbabwe, etc...
We'll take odds on how long you last trashing their founding documents.


I will be as pedantic and even run the risk of seeming dogmatic for as long as it takes. The Constitution for the United States of America most assuredly does not "allow" for drivel to spill from lips, nor for fingers to zip across a key board. Driveling and typing, or more generally, speech and publishing, are unalienable rights that preexist the Constitution. They are not rights granted by that Constitution, and the express language of prohibition against government in the Bill of Rights only supports what I am stating. Not to mention the Ninth Amendment.

If you genuinely believe that the Constitution "allows" you freedom, then that document is nothing more than a "worthless piece of paper". It's true and genuine value is understanding that this document, The Constitution for the United States of America is a profound indictment of government, not of the People. It is a document that seeks to restrain and prevent government from trampling upon the rights of the People.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Tworide

Originally posted by illuminatislave
Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.


That 'worthless document" as you call it allows the drivel to spill from your lips, or fingers as the case may be.
Don't like it? I'm sure we can raise the funds for a one way ticket to Iran, N. Korea, Zimbabwe, etc...
We'll take odds on how long you last trashing their founding documents.


I will be as pedantic and even run the risk of seeming dogmatic for as long as it takes. The Constitution for the United States of America most assuredly does not "allow" for drivel to spill from lips, nor for fingers to zip across a key board. Driveling and typing, or more generally, speech and publishing, are unalienable rights that preexist the Constitution. They are not rights granted by that Constitution, and the express language of prohibition against government in the Bill of Rights only supports what I am stating. Not to mention the Ninth Amendment.

If you genuinely believe that the Constitution "allows" you freedom, then that document is nothing more than a "worthless piece of paper". It's true and genuine value is understanding that this document, The Constitution for the United States of America is a profound indictment of government, not of the People. It is a document that seeks to restrain and prevent government from trampling upon the rights of the People.


Poor choice of words on my part. Corrected to :That 'worthless document" as you call it protects the drivel to spill from your lips, or fingers as the case may be.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I admit, at my ripe old age, 61. I tend to be a bit emotional when it comes to our Constitution. This is what upset me on Ginsburg's stepping out of her Judicial robe, in order to hand deliver political rhetoric for her President. It's wrong.

If she has decided to wear the robe of campaigner for the current administration, she should hang up her Judge's robe. imoho.

Des
edit on 6-2-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tworide
 





Poor choice of words on my part. Corrected to :That 'worthless document" as you call it protects the drivel to spill from your lips, or fingers as the case may be.


And yet, you insist on calling my worthy correction pointing out that unalienable rights exist with or without any Constitution, as "drivel". Sigh.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join