Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The US Constitution is as meaningless as ours


Recommended Posts

The sacred constitution, according to Americans, the best ever written. But what exactly does it mean? What does it protect? Why, whatever you want it to! It simply depends on who you appoint to the supreme court to 'interpret' it.

I've read a lot about Scalia's death and what it means to the court, with legal beagles saying that all kinds of previous rulings, such as ones on gun control and campaign financing, will go out the window if Obama gets to appoint a liberal judge to take his place. Imagine what the court would rule if there were nine liberal judges? Imagine what they'd rule of there were nine men like Scalia?

Just as when Paul Martin stacked the Canadian supreme court with pro-gay activists just prior to a big ruling on gay rights, a constitution is a worthless piece of paper which is completely at the mercy of whomever interprets it, saying the exact opposite on almost anything other interpreters, or for that matter, the people who wrote it want. It just depends on the ideology of the judges. The uh, 'unbiased' (cough-cough) judges.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/if-republican-led-senate-blocks-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-he-wins-anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

All laws are subject to interpretation by those who run the game. Not a lawyer? Then you're not licensed to interpret them 'properly'. You don't get to effectively disagree with the interpretation. You are at the mercy of the game managers and referees.

When understanding is denied, from where comes inexcusable ignorance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as when Paul Martin stacked the Canadian supreme court with pro-gay activists just prior to a big ruling on gay rights,

What specific ruling did the SCC make on gay marriage?

You think appointing 2 judges is "stacking the SCC"?

...at the mercy of whomever interprets it, saying the exact opposite on almost anything other interpreters, or for that matter, the people who wrote it want.

So slavery should have been left in the US Constitution?

The 13th Amendment should have been left out?

Who cares what the original authors had to say! Times change, and a nation's constitution needs to change with it. A nation can't be beholden to someone who thought it was a good idea to own people as property... or to what P.E.T. thought about Canada in 1982.

It simply depends on who you appoint to the supreme court to 'interpret' it.

Who would you prefer to interpret the constitution?

Imagine what the court would rule if there were nine liberal judges? Imagine what they'd rule of there were nine men like Scalia?

The US SC seems much more partisan that the SCC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sacred constitution, according to Americans, the best ever written. But what exactly does it mean? What does it protect? Why, whatever you want it to! It simply depends on who you appoint to the supreme court to 'interpret' it.

In the late 18th century, when these guys wrote the US Constitution, there was no word "republic" - except in Latin texts from several thousand years before, or a Helvetica "state".

They were trying to create something new.

In 1770, every place was a monarchy - more or less. The French Revolution happened later. This idea of a people's republic, a democracy, started in America. Make no mistake, Argus.

======

Will this 18th century Constitution survive the efforts of a dictator/demagogue to subvert it? I think so.

But Chou-En Lai had maybe a better answer: The French Revolution is still to be decided.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the number of times the Harper stacked SCC ruled against Harper, I'd have to agree.

Harper had trouble finding conservatives to put on the SCC. Twenty years of liberalism had left few conservative judges, and law schools staffed by very liberal, activist oriented professors who adored Beverly McLachlin's belief that the courts should control Canadian society according to their own ideological beliefs and without regard to the constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harper had trouble finding conservatives to put on the SCC. Twenty years of liberalism had left few conservative judges, and law schools staffed by very liberal, activist oriented professors who adored Beverly McLachlin's belief that the courts should control Canadian society according to their own ideological beliefs and without regard to the constitution.

But find them he did, and even they snubbed his attempts to override the charter.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Harper had trouble finding conservatives to put on the SCC. Twenty years of liberalism had left few conservative judges, and law schools staffed by very liberal, activist oriented professors who adored Beverly McLachlin's belief that the courts should control Canadian society according to their own ideological beliefs and without regard to the constitution.

You are simply making stuff up to fit your narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brown_(judge)

In addition, while a member of the University of Alberta's Faculty of Law, Brown published posts on the faculty's blog expressing his views on a number of topics. He called the Canada Health Act “an inappropriate %5Bfederal%5D intrusion into sacrosanct provincial swimming pools,” referred to third party election spending limits as "odious" and "restriction on private expenditure during elections" as "objectionable", described human rights commissions as "puritanical functionaries",%5B5%5D and described himself as a "conservative libertarian".%5B1%5D

By all accounts, Justice Brown is very conservative in his political views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But find them he did, and even they snubbed his attempts to override the charter.

I think you are confused about what overriding the Charter means. He never attempted to override the charter, and as I have patiently explained to you, the majority of bills overturned were not his, but the previous Liberal government's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are simply making stuff up to fit your narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brown_(judge)

By all accounts, Justice Brown is very conservative in his political views.

I said he had trouble finding conservatives to put on the SCC. I didn't say he found none. And he was looking for not merely conservatives, but judges who were not in favor of the judicial activism advocated by McLachlan. He wanted judges who would not decide cases based on political ideology, but law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said he had trouble finding conservatives to put on the SCC. I didn't say he found none. And he was looking for not merely conservatives, but judges who were not in favor of the judicial activism advocated by McLachlan. He wanted judges who would not decide cases based on political ideology, but law.

So what's your issue then? He found conservative judges to appoint. The SCC is made up of majority Harper appointees.

You also never answered the gay marriage question. Which ruling are you talking about the SCC making just after being "stacked" by Martin?

You also didn't answer the question about who you would prefer to interpret the Constitution if not the courts... a panel of esteemed right-wingers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...