« Mike Easley - NC's Jimmy Carter | Main | Bird Flu Basics »
October 13, 2005
We're Never Getting a "Strict Constructionist" SCOTUS
There has been a lot of talk, in the process of the latest Supreme Court nominations, of whether we need "strict constructionist" judges on the court. Count me as one who thinks we do. I do not, however, believe that we're going to get the type of constructionists we need on the court. While I believe that we have two on the court right now that are superior to the rest, in Scalia and Thomas, even they have not proven to favor the constructionism that I'd prefer.
Some would like to paint constructionism as a code word for taking voting rights away from blacks and women. They're just partisan hacks, in my opinion. Neither of these would be allowed under the current Constitution, and should not be. What we need is a Supreme Court that would look at the strict wording of the Constitution in the decisions they make from the bench.
What would this mean?
Freedom of Speech is an individual right. There should be no need to be a member of any press organization to enjoy freedom of speech. Likewise, political speech should receive the highest protection, whether performed by an individual or a group of individuals. Today's interpretation of freedom of speech will allow one group to pool their resources and receive protections, while another group pooling their resources can be punished at will. The only difference is that the first group is called "the media" while the other is called a "political organization." Freedom of speech was written into our Constitution primarily to protect political speech, yet political speech is the first to go. That's wrong.
The requirement that the federal government not institute a state religion is not a requirement that religion be scoured from all government at all levels.
Freedom to peaceably assemble trumps laws covering peaceable assembly.
As the right to keep and bear arms was designed as an individual right to protect against an oppressive government, individuals should be able to own firearms of their choice, up to and including modern military weaponry.
The right against unreasonable search and seizure means that representatives of the government must have a valid reason to search you or your property. Just because your car is on a government road is not a good reason. That the policeman wants to make sure you don't have a weapon that can be used against him is not a good reason. That you are the randomly chosen person or are in the randomly chosen vehicle is not a good reason. That you are suspected of committing a crime, and need to be searched pursuant to that search IS a good reason. This right does NOT constitute a right to privacy, whether I like it or not.
The federal government has no power over health care, drugs, or any medical procedure.
The federal government has no power over education. The education department, all education funding, and all education regulation should be abolished.
This isn't all. There's plenty more. I would say, however, that a judge who would properly interpret the US Constitution would do as well on the more as he or she would on the above. I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Lockjaw at October 13, 2005 9:40 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lockjawslair.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/261
Comments
It's good that you're not holding your breath. But it's nice to dream, isn't it?
Posted by: Ogre at October 13, 2005 10:11 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)