The Constitution can no longer be simply "read"

[AmericanFreeBird]

I was driving into work today listening to WABC out of NYC, the "Curtiss and Kooby" morning show. Ron Kooby is a Liberal/Self proclaimed communist lawyer from NYC. He's a very successful criminal defense lawyer and though he's way out wacked left wing his legal assesments are very pointed.

They were discussing the SCOTUS case concerning the pledge of allegance case that the court has granted cert to and justice Scalea has recused himself from. The issue, is the phrase "...One nation, under God..." an unconstitutional separation of church and state violation.

A caller calls in and explains that the establishment clause means only that the US Congress "SHALL PASS NO LAW" and that since a public school is not congress and no federal law has been passed etc. the phrase and the pledge should be okay for public school children to recite.

Ron launches into a tirade and says that since the "Marbury v. Madison" SCOTUS case, the SCOTUS has proclaimed itself the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the constitution and that you simply cannot read the constitution like you would the Holy scriptures. You must have available and know the various outcomes and decisions that have been made concerning the constitution to be able to state with any certainty what the phrasiology there actually means.

That is to say, that since the SCOTUS has made some bad or wrong decisions concerning the constitution that they have basically rewritten various parts of it by Judicial fiat. For instance, if the SCOTUS says that the phrase "...The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." means "The right of the People to keep and/or bear some approved arms should not be infringed without due process and for only compelling State intrests." Then the Constitution will have been amended without going through the amendment process.

How can this be? Because the Supreme Court has self proclaimed themselves the only interpreter of the constitution. A Judge, just a normal man, but since he's a Supreme Court Justice can single handedly amend our constitution by being the tie breaking vote on the 9 Judge bench.

This is scary.

 

[TarpleyG]

It's okay to interpret the whole thing EXCEPT the 2nd amendment. That one should be left and read just as-is, no interpretation allowed.

GT

 

[Bruce H]

Which ever idiot ever said the court was supposed to interpet the constitution caused more trouble than anyone else for the USA. The constitution doesn't need interpeting. What needs interpeting is all the laws that are passed to see if they are compatable with the constitution.

 

[AJ Dual]

Exactly, the purpose of the SCOTUS is not to "interpret the constitution" but to interpret the acts of the states, and the legislative and executive branches against the constiution.

This has been slowly twisted over time by those in favor of an activist judiciary who can't get their agendas passed the proper way through the legislature.

Someone needs a few taps with the clue stick to remind them that when they failed to get what they wanted legislatively, and try to end-run us through the courts, the U.S. was set up to make it hard to get things passed through the legislative and executive branches on purpose.

 

[AmericanFreeBird]

This is Eliteism at it's finest. They, the keepers of the deep constitutional knowlege, will TELL you the unwashed unlearned masses what the constitution really means.

And you will like it too.

This more than anything will be what may bring on the 2nd American Civil War I think. Judicial activism is killing this country.

 

[Smoke]

It's okay to interpret the whole thing EXCEPT the 2nd amendment. That one should be left and read just as-is, no interpretation allowed.

I have real problems with that statement.

 

[Molon Labe]

Ron launches into a tirade and says that since the "Marbury v. Madison" SCOTUS case, the SCOTUS has proclaimed itself the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the constitution

And who gave the Supreme Court the authority to make such a claim?

No where in the Constitution does it say, “the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the underlying meaning of the constitution.†Therefore, the Supreme Court isn’t the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the constitution, no matter what it has “ruled.â€

The bottom line is this: The Supreme Court has made wrong decisions, and will continue to make wrong decisions. And wrong decisions do not deserve the respect of recognition.

 

[Graystar]

Pleae don't forget that the very reason the Supreme Court addresses an issue is because there is a difference in interpretation between opposing parties. Do you really think the USSC arbitrarily takes parts of the Constitution and "interpretes" for no good reason??

And what makes YOUR reading of the Constitution correct and OTHERS' reading wrong? (Besides the fact that it's your reading, and not theirs.)

 

[Molon Labe]

And what makes YOUR reading of the Constitution correct and OTHERS' reading wrong?

Because when it comes right down to it, there’s no such thing as an absolute, objective interpretation. For example, Senator Feinstein argues the Second Amendment protects a state’s right to form a militia. And she has “convincing proof.†I contend that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. And I have “convincing proof.â€

We can’t both be right. So who’s right?

Of course, I think I’m right. But she thinks she’s right. So who’s really right? Who has the authority to say?

Here’s the answer: I am the authority on my rights. Not you. Not Sen. Feinswine. Not the Supreme Court. Not our Founding Fathers. Not John Locke. But me. If a Supreme Court decision supports my interpretation of my inalienable rights, then that’s great. If a Supreme Court decision rules counter to my interpretation of my rights, then too bad for the Supreme Court...