If you want to save the fillibuster

[Campy]

Actually, it does both. There is the habeus corpus provision, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to peaceable assembly, the right to bear arms, the freedom of the press. All these things are outlined in the Constitution and its amendments.

It does not do both. It does specify some rights (eg, women's suffrage) but the Constitution wasn't created to be an all encompassing list of rights. It does "grant" some rights in the sense that it puts limitaions on the ability of legislatures - be they federal, state, or local - to deny those rights to Americans. Most people aregue that it limits the powers of government as opposed to grants rights.

You are sort of right about this. The Constitution states that any rights not specifically set aside for the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.

He wasn't "sort of" right - he was "spot-on" right.

True, but not relevant. How can 200 years of legal precedent be used to justify a completely new interpretation of a constitutional provision that's been around for 200 years? You're no longer skating on thin ice here, you're skating where there's no ice at all.

"New" interpretations of our 200 year old Constitution merely demonstrates the wisdom and foresight of the founding fathers. As you don't specify the interpretation to which you refer, I can only offer the generic response that the Constitution is bigger than any single issue.

 

According to this line of thinking, Roe vs. Wade was a mistake, because it turned what was a state issue (abortion) into a federal issue. The chief effect of Roe vs. Wade was that the states no longer had control over their own abortion policies, because this was dictated from Washington.

Again, the feds never made abortions legal. What the Sup Ct did do was rule that it's not an area in which government should legislate. Again, the Constitution is designed to place restrictions on government's ability to restrict individual rights, not to directly grant rights to the people.

 

I'm not trying to change your mind, but I trust you're willing to consider why so many of us (both lefties and righties) are so quick to dismiss the "activist judiciary" mantra.

[Pac_Man]

It does not do both.  It does specify some rights (eg, women's suffrage) but the Constitution wasn't created to be an all encompassing list of rights.  It does "grant" some rights in the sense that it puts limitaions on the ability of legislatures - be they federal, state, or local - to deny those rights to Americans.  Most people aregue that it limits the powers of government as opposed to grants rights.

 

It limits the power of the federal government. In addition, it grants rights which no government--federal, state, or local--can take away. The freedom of speech falls into this category.

 

He wasn't "sort of" right - he was "spot-on" right.

lol

 

"New" interpretations of our 200 year old Constitution merely demonstrates the wisdom and foresight of the founding fathers.  As you don't specify the interpretation to which you refer, I can only offer the generic response that the Constitution is bigger than any single issue.

What I am referring to is the prohibition against unreasonable government searches of private homes suddenly coming to refer to condoms and abortions. I mean, the Constitutional provision against unreasonable searches was just sitting there for well over a century. Then in the 1960s, along came the Supreme Court and decided that the provision now had something to do with contraception, and, in the '70s, abortion.

Again, the feds never made abortions legal.  What the Sup Ct did do was rule that it's not an area in which government should legislate.  Again, the Constitution is designed to place restrictions on government's ability to restrict individual rights, not to directly grant rights to the people.

Um . . . your logic is convoluted here. The Supreme Court declared it was unconstitutional for any government entity, whether federal or state, to prohibit abortion. As a result, abortion became legal throughout the U.S.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but I trust you're willing to consider why so many of us (both lefties and righties) are so quick to dismiss the "activist judiciary" mantra.

345101[/snapback]

I'm willing to consider any reasonable arguments you care to make about why you think the judiciary isn't activist. So far I haven't seen any; but that doesn't mean I plan to ignore any future ones that may come along.