Posted by Tina
Unless she was trying to be politically clever, a distinct possibility, Senator Diane Feinstein showed a remarkable level of ignorance at the hearings for Neil Gorsuch yesterday. Her remarks slamming original interpretation, as opposed to the progressive concept of the Constitution as “a living document” are remarkable:
“Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling. In essence, it means that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789. However, to do so would so would not only ignore the intent of the Framers, that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build, but it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds.” …
… “I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves. In 1789, the population of the United States was under four million. Today, we’re 325 million and growing. At the time of our founding, African-Americans were enslaved. It was not so long after women had been burned at the stake for witchcraft, and the idea of an automobile, let alone the internet, was unfathomable. In fact, if we were to dogmatically adhere to originalist interpretations, then we would still have segregated schools, and bans on interracial marriage. Women wouldn’t be entitled to equal protection under the law, and government discrimination against LGBT Americans would be permitted.
Gorsuch addressed the question today when replying to a question from Senator Hatch about the fourth amendment and modern technology:
“…technology changes but the principles don’t.”
He is exactly right. Feinstein wrongly assumes that “public meaning”…or current opinion…is the basis of the Constitution. Hers is a shallow, ignorant, position. The words in the Constitution express definitive ideals regarding freedom and equal justice under the law. Supreme Court judges are tasked with considering new laws, or whims of the time, against those definitive ideals.
Feinstein asks us to believe that she thinks inalienable individual rights should “evolve” because our nation has a lot more citizens now than it had at the founding. She asks us to believe our rights of speech, property, and equal justice are whimsical. She asks us to believe that religious freedom is a concept that should change with the times.
Feinstein says she believes the framers intended the Constitution to be continuously “reinterpreted” over time. The founders disagreed:
Patrick Henry: “[L]iberty ought to be the direct end of your government.”
James Wilson: “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”
George Washington: “[Government] has no more right to put their hands into my pockets, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into yours …”
Joseph Story: “The Constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes for which those powers were conferred.”
Alexander Hamilton: “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid …”
The framers gave us a mechanism to amend the Constitution. It is a rigorous process. It was intended to be rigorous so as to preserve the solid ideals expressed in the document. Lincoln was quite clear on this point:
“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
Clearly Senator Feinstein (Dem-CA) and her progressive colleagues do not understand the Constitution. They do not appreciate the brilliance of the founders or the inherent beauty and timelessness of the document they crafted. Instead progressives look for “interpretations” that impose greater governmental powers over the people and expansion of special interest legislation. This is a path that will lead to the death of our republic.
The people elected Donald Trump over his progressive competitor. One of the reasons was preservation of our Constitution. Neil Gorsuch will be the next Supreme Court judge and that is a good thing.
Tina, you are being dense … unless you are one of those ladies who, a la Mrs. Wilcox, would be only too glad not to have the vote yourself? … and the table goes DEAD quiet. I actually fast-forward right then, because it is sooooooo embarrassing to watch. (See “Howard’s End”.)
In which case, just don’t vote. Nobody’s making you … and you have LOTS of company. The rest of us are keeping with that expanded definition of “men”, to politically include “women” … the fellas FINALLY come around to, oh, about Amendment 22, I think it was.
Better late than never.
There is a difference between having ideas and being an ideologue. I think that, after a suitable grilling, he’ll get the nod.
Libby you are as ignorant as Feinstein. and no, “the table” does not “go DEAD quiet.”
The obvious truth is, were I living in 1787 I would not have the ABILITY to vote per societal norms. Society at the time was inconsistent with wording in the Constitution. The word “man” is from an Old English construct in which man means person.
The word man defined:
You choose to ignore the second and third definitions, as do most petty feminists. But the language in the Constitution, the language those old white men chose, ensured the female vote, society just needed to catch up to the wisdom in the Constitution. This example, as well as that of the black vote, shows the brilliance of the founders and the timelessness of the document. It is sound as written. It does not require “modern” interpretation (read “transformation”).
Supreme Court judges are tasked with testing contested legislation against specific wording in the Constitution.
President Obama, Senator Feinstein and other radical lefties in the Democrat Party (and unfortunately some judges) see the Constitution as a “living document” because they don’t like the limitations it places on them fashion society according to their own personal beliefs…to manipulate and control citizens and to redistribute wealth through taxation and regulation. Barack Obama indicated as much in a radio interview:
The federal government has overstepped dramatically over seventy years. If the people were consistent in our love of liberty and appreciation for the Constitution we would take steps to reign in this overreach to be consistent with the Constitution and it’s guarantees and protections.
Love Howard’s End, by the way.
“The obvious truth is, were I living in 1787 I would not have the ABILITY to vote per societal norms. Society at the time was inconsistent with wording in the Constitution. The word “man” is from an Old English construct in which man means person.”
Horsepucky.
Seriously, Tina, by that logic, we would have had the vote all along … but we didn’t, did we!?
Geez.
Well golly no, we didn’t, Libs. Or I should say, “They didn’t.”
But it’s your thinking that is, shall we say, fuzzy.
Women didn’t have the vote all along because of the accepted social mores of the day.
The Constitution wasn’t the cause of that.
So you deny that “man” is and has always been a word that means humans?
Pretty lame, Libs. In fact it is one of the things that makes feminism of the sixties variety so annoying. Early PC crap!
No, I point out that if it did … we would have had the vote all along … social mores notwithstanding.
Must you ALWAYS be such a hypocrite?
Tina my dear you want to dictate your beliefs to all.
Frankly my dear step aside…
No the founders did not want to stop time, freeze to that moment in time. You clearly need to read more correspondence between them.
You can live your life any way you want but do not try to tell the rest of us we should be strapped down and enslaved by your ideology and interpretations.
No need to “my dear” me you condescending little twirp.
Exactly what ideology do you imagine I hold that would “strap” anyone “down” or “enslave” them?
Ignorant fool, I stand for equal justice and freedom for every individual. (And I do not need permission from any progressive to do so!)
Look in the mirror, you’ll see a control freak looking back at you.
The idea that the Constitution is a living document is actually part of the Constitution. But, not in the way the Liberals/Democrats want you to believe.
The Democrats want everyone to believe that the Constitution (and all laws for that matter) can be interpreted in any way that is convenient. If the Constitution says something that is inconvenient just change what it really says and suggest in today’s context it has to be interpreted differently. Better yet, just ignore it completely in the same way as the previous administration ignored the immigration laws. It ok if liberal judges legislate from the bench. It’s ok if the president makes his own law through executive orders and by not enforcing laws even though making law is the jurisdiction of Congress. After all aren’t laws open to interpretation? The answer to that is NO, they aren’t!
The Constitution is a living document, but not through spinning the Constitution’s content. The authors of the Constitution provided for changing the Constitution through the amendment process. The current Constitution contains 27 amendments. The fact that there is an amendment process is an indication that the author’s intended for a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Why would you need an amendment process if they intended the constitution to be skewed to fit any circumstance you want to establish?
To propose an amendment it requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of the state Legislatures. Ratification requires acceptance by ¾ of the state legislatures or by conventions in ¾ of the states as designated by Congress when the amendment is proposed. Yes, it is difficult to change the constitution but is possible to do so. So why haven’t the liberals used the amendment process to establish some of the policies they are currently pushing through a loose interpretation of the Constitution? Because it is difficult! And it should be! It requires the consensus of the people and the liberal policies they are pushing just don’t have that kind of support.
Great comments More Common Sense
“After all aren’t laws open to interpretation? The answer to that is NO, they aren’t!”
Well written laws don’t require interpretation. It should be the challenge of those who write our laws to make them clear and concise.
The Constitution says a lot in few words (8,700 words).
Obamacare consists of 381,517 words. More troubling still 11,588,500 words make up the added regulations created, not by our lawmakers, but by un-elected bureaucrats. No Wonder it’s such a disaster! (Not that the federal government should be involved in healthcare, anyway)
Well said, More Common Sense! And 100% correct – in spite of the Leftie harrangers appearing here!
“Yes, it is difficult to change the constitution but is possible to do so. So why haven’t the liberals used the amendment process to establish some of the policies they are currently pushing through a loose interpretation of the Constitution? Because it is difficult! … and the liberal policies they are pushing just don’t have that kind of support.”
Absolutely right.
Often they think they do because they frame their ideas in sweet sounding rhetoric. But when people are fully informed of the ramification they reject policies and ideals espoused by the progressive left.
There’s a reason they target the young and inexperienced to push their agenda.
Feinstein’s gobbledygook remarks are no different than the still wet paint on the barn in ‘Animal Farm’. The law means what we say it means today. Check back tomorrow.
How true! The law says what I want it to say, the mark of the tyrant!
It wasn’t for nothing that the founders wrote, “We hold these truths…”
How mushy the message would have been had they written “We hold these suggestions…”
Another example of mushy interpretation:
Our laws against murder (or manslaughter) are clear and yet we found a way around it. (It’s not a human being, just a blob of tissue, an unwanted “invasive” blob)…and we accomplished that through the body, the Supreme Court, which is not a lawmaking body per the Constitution but there to uphold laws.
“No, I point out that if it did … we would have had the vote all along … social mores notwithstanding.”
Typical liberal, trying to make it so just because you say so.
The Declaration speaks truth (wisdom)…”…all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator (you hate that part doncha) with unalienable rights…”
Human beings are not always steeped in that wisdom …the beauty in the /constitution is that it is true whether you think it is or not.
The framers didn’t write to satisfy their current social construct. They wrote a document that would be timeless and resolute. A document to withstand the petty arguments and differences of everyday life. A document that would stand up, even when attacked.
Good opinion expressed here:
“…all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights…”
Yes. Our rights are endowed by our creator. Our government does not have the authority to grant or deny them (the power yes, but not the authority). The Constitution is an instruction manual telling the government exactly what in may do and how. The Bill of Rights is a list telling the government “hands off”.
” … equal justice and freedom for every individual.”
I’m sure Gorsuch would say the same, but neither you nor he, quite, entirely, seem to back action that supports your ideals … unless you do, indeed, champion the freedom to freeze to death in your truck at your employer’s bidding?
“…unless you do, indeed, champion the freedom to freeze to death in your truck at your employer’s bidding?”
Nice try. You and I both know this odd story does not represent the norm for employers. It may not even be a truthful story given these times of fake news.
What a snarky little shot you are.
And a neener, neener to you too!
And a neener, neener to you too!
No law lays out every possible contingency, and any government agency is going to have to interpret on a case-by-case basis. Tell us, Tina … what makes an interpretation favoring the employer correct, but the employee incorrect? That is all this boils down to.
” That is all this boils down to.”
That is what WHAT boils down to? I cannot discuss a thing that has not been articulated fully. Imagining that I believe “freedom” is freezing in a truck by order of the employer is just stupid. Your position appears to be that I am a heartless, inhumane ogre that would go out of my way to see employees are harmed. Your position is insane…total crap. What possible benefit would that have for an employer? I think both employee and employer are responsible to follow health and safety rules…much of it is just plain common sense.
My position has ALWAYS been that regulations should be clear and easy for ALL to understand. My position is they should serve both employee and employer since both employee and employer are served by the government. The laws should be clear. No interpretation needed.
Instead we have layers and layers of regulations, created and enforced over several agencies, that change constantly and are difficult to read much less enforce. This is not only ridiculous but expensive, making the cost, passed on to consumers, much higher than necessary.
When accidents occur the INCIDENT is investigated. When breaches in the regulations are found to be the the employer’s fault he will pay dearly…could lose his license to do business.
I don’t think you view freedom as a given right that requires all citizens to act responsibly. I think you believe the standard is that freedom (expressed as equality) must be enforced.
The work place isn’t a contest between employee and employer and when you make it one all you do is breed discontent, division, and animosity…the very tool most often used by radical progressives everywhere to destroy the peace and institute a tyrannical state.