So he doesn’t deny the right of Judicial Review, he just has a personal preference for how to interpret it.
If I may, I think you two are just misinterpreting what the other is saying because of the linguistic ambiguity in the phrase “the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says.” Dio is not saying that the justices are free define the Constitution however they want without regard to the text, he’s saying that their decisions about it are final and it is their power to interpret it as they see fit. And 2.5" is not saying that anyone, including Scalia, doesn’t believe in judicial review. He is saying that there are limits to Constitutional interpretation (as in, it doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean).
Nope, I was referring to the other noun in the thread title.
Marbury and the Writ of Mandabus say you’re wrong.
And the 14th Amendment clarifies that those rights cannot be usurped by states.
I still find this to be a bizarre angle for you to take. Why do you want fewer rights?
The ACLU has a long history of supporting the removal of any reference to God from a government agency. Whether you agree with their position or not this is consistent with the quotes mentioned. Again, the question was what do people on the right have against the ACLU. Answer given.
OT nitpick. The Freemasons were never Masons. There used to be free masons, IE masons that could travel from country to country building churches where there was work, and they were members of masonic craft guilds, but that’s not the same as a ‘Freemason’. They were just called Masons. Freemasons as the word we know today were always the members of the order of Freemasons, that were founded off of a moral and spiritual metaphor relating the improvement of the individual to mastering the craft of masonry.
That does not expressly give the power of Judicial Review. The Supreme Court interpreted it that way. It is circular to say the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution because the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to say it has the power to interpret the Constitution.
Also, Judicial Review is different from the power to interpret the Constitution however the Supreme Courts wants to. So even if we agree that the Supreme Court legitimately has the power of Judicial Review (and I agree it does), this does not settle the question of the proper modes of interpretation. You seem to being saying that that conservatives cannot legitimately be opposed to the modes of interpretation that the Supreme Court has used (and the ACLU has argued should be used).
I hope this makes sense. I am too tired.
What does it have to do with the quote? I think I established pretty clearly that Baldwin was not a Communist, much less anti-religious.
You’re making a new argument, which is separate from the quote. Your argument is that the right-wing is so invested in the government mentioning god that they hate the ACLU for enforcing the First Amendment even though it is a tiny part of what the ACLU has done in their history. Does that strike you as rational, or are you just trying to explain these beliefs without defending them?
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
The 14th Amendment essentially requires 3 things of the States:[ul][li]“privileges and immunities” - interpreted in the Slaughter-house cases to protect only the States, not the individual[]“equal protection of the law” - great. All for it. []no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law” - this would be great. But… [/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
My point is not to debate exactly what the 14th amendment requires. My point is that it is inherently a limitation of the states’ legislative powers. Is there a question about whether the 14th amendment has been over-broadened? Maybe. But on the face of it, the 14th amendment limits states’ powers.
A tangential question for you, perhaps better taken up elsewhere: Would allowing state government to abrogate federal civil rights be practical in this day and age? Also, wouldn’t your interpretation pretty much have the opposite affect? Wouldn’t the state governments just start doing all the oppressive stuff that the federal government couldn’t do? Most of the rights we’re talking about, I don’t want any form of government infringing.
Yes. And that preference (whether it is just personal is up to debate) puts restrictions on how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Justice Scalia would deny that the Supreme Court can just say the Constitution means whatever we, the Supreme Court, say it means. I don’t think any Justice holds the position that the Supreme Court can rule anyway it wants on the Constitution.*
Many people, mostly conservatives, also feel the Supreme Court should limit its interpretation of the Constitution to what it was understood to mean at the time its specific parts were passed.
This is an intellectually honest position and anyone holding it would be opposed to many of the arguments presented by the ACLU.
- Maybe Justice William Brennan did - “Five votes can do anything around here.”
Many, indeed. Especially in the area of reproductive rights. But a minority of the overall work of the ACLU, I think.
Thank you, if I haven’t been clear to everyone, I apologize, but yes, my point is that because the Supreme Court’s interpetations of the Constitution are final and binding, that the COTUS effectively means “whatever SCOTUS says it means.”
I also think, that while Scalia may have a personal opinion about how the Constutution should be interpreted, it’s not, strictly speaking, am opinion that the Court does not have the right of Judicial Review but is only an opinion of how that power should be exercised. It’s also an opinion with no authority of law. If he wants to follow an Originalist reading, he is free to so, but he has no authority to tell anyone else on the court how to interpret anything.
Question begging. As, I’m afraid, 2.5" points out. And just because there was a Writ of Mandamus in the case doesn’t mean it has any bearing on any constitutional issue. Are you sure you know what a Writ of Mandamus is?
First of all, you said the “Bill of Rights grants…”
Secondly, the 14th Amendment grands three specific rights against the State. It says nothing about the Bill of Rights. Interpreting it to include parts of the Bill of Rights has been a development of the last 80 years or so. (Starting probably in 1905 with Lochner)
I don’t. I want the Federal government to have less power over the States, and I want the Judiciary to have less power in the Federal government. Read post #46.
The ACLU has never had the power to remove any regference to God from any government organization. All it can do is ask the courts to uphold the Constutution. If you have a problem with religious expression being removed from the government, your problem is with the First Amendment, not with the ACLU.
Right, but you seem to be saying that conservatives cannot legitimately hold an originalist position and oppose the work of the ACLU. You also seem to be saying that anyone holding an originalist position is just wrong. Are you saying this? Or do you think an originalist position can be legitimate (even if you disagree with it as I do)?
Anyone holding an originalist position is going to oppose many of the positions of the ACLU.
Edit - Please forgive all the things I fuck up tonight. I will be going to bed soon.
Statements like this one are the reason that somewhere a handful of Founding Fathers hang their heads in shame while another handful point and laugh.
CMC +fnord!
Just in case.
The single most compelling argument IMHO against adopting the “Bill of Rights” was the notion that someday someone would make the argument that the ONLY rights citizens had were those enumerated in it.
Hence the Ninth Amendment,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
There are NO rights in the Constitution, the Constitution is a limit on the power of government to interfere with those inalienable rights.
Since this is amtter of established law, it is not question begging. The Supreme Court said that the COTUS gave them the right to Judicial Review, there it does and that’s the end of it. You can call that circular if you want, and you may even be rightm but as a matter of law it’s a moot point. The Supreme Court has the pwoer of Judicial Review, period. That’s the law.
I only cited the Judial Act of 1789 and writs of Mandabus as evidence that the founders intended for the Supreme Court to have the right of Judicial Review.
It does when it mentions Equal Protection.
Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you but the Judiciary is an equal branch of government and it’s going to stay that way. It sounds like your real problem is with the Constitution, not with the ACLU.
Why do you want your state to be able to take away your civil rights?
If you want a particular right protected from government intrusion, an excellent place to put that guarantee is in your own State’s constitution. Each of the 50 States has one, and they’re all easier to amend than the Federal one. Once it’s in your State constitution, it can be enforced by the courts of your State, and the Federal government can keep out of it. I don’t know if the ACLU lobbies for this, but I feel that amending State constitutions would be an excellent application of their influence.
As a bonus, you can throw MORE civil liberties into your State constitution than you’d ever be able to get past the States you consider backwards. Everybody’s happy: the blue States get their personal freedoms and the red states get their theocracies.
It’s federalism. Some people think it’s a good idea because slavish devotion to the smart fellows in the 1780s who invented it. I personally think it’s a good idea because of its own merits.
Diogenes, why do you worship the devil and fail to floss regularly?
Actually, that probably deserves a serious reply.
You say that I’m advocating the States taking away my civil liberties.
I say that you’re advocating the Federal Government taking away your civil liberties.
It’s really a balancing act. Who do you trust more: the government where your vote counts for 1/300 million of the total, or the government where your vote counts for 1/10 million of the total?
They do. The ACLU has an office in every state and lobbies on the state level for legislation that they see as consistent with their mission. Similarly, they have litigation strategies in all of these states to preserve the civil liberties granted in state constitutions. They do far, far more than any other impact litigation organization to work with state law.