Are "Strict Judicial Contstructionists" anti-American?

The preamble is to the US Constitution what the Earth's oceans and seas are to mankind's ships.

The preamble of the US Constitution gives purpose to and establishes the legitimacy of each Article, Section, and Amendment of the US Constitution - not vice versa!

The "Strict Judicial Constructionist" is the enemy of our US Constitution and of all Americans who hope to "<...> secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity."

The "Strict Judicial Constructionist" seeks to enslave the spirit of our US Constitution to the original letters of its laws and to bind our posterity to that slavery, falsely doing so in the name of federalism.

Hereby, I declare that the "Strict Judicial Constructionist" catchphrase is Orwellian.

The "Strict Judicial Constructionist" is a judicial terrorist who advances an antithetical "conservative temperance" in judicial philosophy toward the US Constitution.

The "Strict Judicial Constructionists" are a greater threat to The United States of America than any terrorist organization!

To allow these "Strict Judicial Constructionists" to deny the preamble of the US Constitution is to allow them to annihilate the US Constitution.

For these judicial terrorists to topple our Democratic Republic while their Neo-con benefactors claim to be spreading Democracy globally, as its greatest proponents, would be an abomination to all of mankind!

Americans unite!

US Senators, US Representatives, and all Americans must stand united to repudiate and dismiss the dishonest and diabolical basis of this Neo-con conspiracy to placate our beloved US Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary with "Strict Judicial Constructionist."

Americans unite!

Protect our US Constitution!

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."


--Letter to Samuel Kercheval
July 12, 1810

many of our fore fathers understood that the Constitution is a beginning, not an end. Literal interpretation was suitable for the era it was written in. Nowadays, much of it needs to be applied to issues facing us. It is not just the words on the page that matter, its the spirit and meaning behind those words that matter.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

I'm not a fan of constructionism...but how does someone who tries to divine "what the founders intended" by definition deny this preamble?

"Form a more perfect union" is subjective, and relative. I have no doubt constructionists believe they're doing so.

"Establish justice." Ditto.

"Insure domestic tranquility." Well...perhaps one might say that a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is at odds with a "living document" interpretation, thus creating disharmony...but that's a stretch.

"Provide for the common defense." That's really kind of irrelevant. Congress and the Executive Branch handles that.

"Promote the general welfare." See #1. My version of "general welfare" is different from that of a Republican. It's probably different from yours, even though we're (likely) on the same side.

"Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Here's, I suppose, where your argument originates. Can you give me an example?

"Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That's a statement of what just happened -- "We wrote this." Can't argue with that.

So...where does this preamble address whether it's to be taken literally or not? Where does it say it gets to evolve? I think, actually, one could make an argument in FAVOR of constructionism, by saying that the founders DID put a mechanism for change in -- the amendment process. If you don't like something, amend it. Beyond that, this is the law.

Hmm...

IF the drafters of the constitution had determined that it was not a living document, then they would have ensured that it could not be amended, nor interpreted.

Strict constructionists are the same boobs who think that if the bible says thou shalt stone someone to death then that is the only method of capital punishment allowed, and that the penalty for eating shellfish is death.

amending the Constitution: strictly speaking, it provides for the mechanism to have itself changed.

There is a problem with allowing jurisprudence to depend on however users of words shift their meanings, cf. practices like deconstruction or Newspeak. Or even the usual confusion over the meaning of the word 'militia' or a comma or two that I've seen DUers horribly misconstrue (in a way that actually *reversed* the meaning of a particular clause of the Constitution ).

I have decidedly mixed feelings about having the subjective perceptions and casuistry of 5 out of 9 individuals, long past accountability for their actions to the governed, decide that a phrase means something it's never been construed to mean in the past. That pushes us towards an oligarchy. It's great as long as we agree with the oligarchs--but let them rule in a way we disagree with, and the problem becomes immediately apparent. And we say that the reinterpretation we don't like is neither democratic or principled, unlike reinterpretations that we *do* agree with. Hence the increasing persnickitiness of how we examine SCOTUS nominees: it's more and more important for *our* interpretation of words and phrases to be applied, not for the governed and those governing to reach consensus through dialog. Dialog may involve compromise--compromise is alien to partisanship--and it would take time. Our culture has come to consider impatience to be a positive value.

"Dialog may involve compromise--compromise is alien to partisanship--and it would take time. Our culture has come to consider impatience to be a positive value."

I also think that the person who quoted Jefferson above made a very good point.

The founders made a flexible, not moribund document, for good reason. They did it to protect all of us. And laws are meant to be adaptable, not rigid.

I think both sides try to control SCOTUS and legal dialogue to their, and all our, peril.

Give us an example of a ruling that was construed actively when it should have been construed strictly.

imply that there are no specific rights to equal rights, to privacy ( and therefore to abortion rights) by their arguments, and that these rulings extend federal and other powers that were not intended by the framers. And this is where they run into trouble, since to construe that strictly would have to mean that many many legal precedents decided since the Warren Court are spurious? I think that is at least part of their argument from what I have read. I think they might cite Roe v Wade, as an example. And that would likely be one of their main examples....

You might have to wait for an actual lawyer to happen by to see if he or she agrees. ;)

They are very UnAmerican

These "Strict Judicial Constructionists" are intellectually dishonest.

They have been corrupted and bred by the same Neo-cons who convinced the Religious Right that they would assume a plethora of societal power if they held true to "the moral agenda," which is just a diversion for the Neo-con agenda: Dominance over all of the Earths resources, including human capital?

They claim to use "conservative temperance" toward the US Constitution and they willfully illustrate this "conservative temperance" toward any law that falls outside a narrow, strict, and antithetical reading of the US Constitution by using their axes to chop away at them.

After the next "Strict Judicial Constructionist" is confirmed to the US Supreme Court, how long will it be before the expanded pillars of our laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, and amendments to the US Constitution, including and subsequent to the Bill of Rights, are torn down in the name of "conservative temperance" and federalism?

But wait!

These same "Strict Judicial Constructionists" become "judicial activists" and Libertarians when they must pass judgment on laws stemming from the First Amendment of the US Constitution, except when it applies to political dissenters - they are now able to be labeled "enemy combatants" and whisked away to foreign gulags for endless torture and a permanent loss of freedom, if not an early death!

Here, in the First Amendment, they find new previously unchartered constitutional territories in advocating free speech and FREEDOM itself!

Here, in the First Amendment, they accomplish their judicial philosophy's greatest sin: they legislate from the bench!

Why the shift in intellectual philosophy for this lone constitutional amendment?

Why create a political fault line in an otherwise seemingly legitimate juridical philosophy: "Strict Judicial Constructionists?"

Well, for starters, it enables Neo-con propagandists to dominate the media, all while they seem to be championing the American Public's right to free speech.

"Strict Judicial Constructionists" acting as "judicial activists" and Libertarians on the First Amendment have chiefly enabled the Religious Right's new voice in government, at the expense of separation of Church and State when religious speech in public policy or public institutions is challenged.

In essence, these "Strict Judicial Constructionists" all seem to be equally and independently arriving at the same hypocritical antithetical interpretations of the US Constitution on expanded Constitutional rights, all seem to be equally and independently arriving at the same hypocritical inability to resist legislating from the bench in order to create religious freedoms of speech in public policy and public institutions (as Constitutional rights), and all seem to be equally and independently arriving at the same hypocritical crossroads that require them to tear down the Constitutional separation of Church and State.

What a grand coincidence, eh?

Our new and improved US Supreme Court Justices may just as well be robots who are incapable of appreciating all of the historical documentation, throughout history, of the spirit and purpose of the US Constitution to serve as a dynamic legal foundation from which the human condition could be advanced.

Instead, these same robot-like judges seem more like a well orchestrated judicial terrorist cell ready, willing, and able to attack the US Constitution and to make it into a Neo-con's dream.

Who will stop these "Strict Judicial Constructionists" before our Democracy is ended by them?

were trying to bound us to what they wrote.

Thats' why they included Article V detaiing how their document could be legally changed. If they wanted to bind us to their words they wouldn't have provided a mechanism for chnging them right within their own document.

The problem comes when people want to change the Constitution but don't want to go through the Article V process to do it.

There is no such thing.

The crop of federal judges appointed by Reagan, Bush and Bush have been activists who have NOT deferred to the will of Congress, have not stayed out of state issues, and have not been anything close to strict constructionists.

Interesting post.

"... It was a political job.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/15/alito/

Bait and switch!

He was just trying to get a political job, so was it was OK to lie or to tell the truth?

It was OK to tell the truth!

His subsequent judicial record is absolutely consistent with his personal statement then, so why would we dismiss his current task of seeking a job as Associate US Supreme Court Justice, per "W's" nomination, as being unrelated to his original self imposed political litmus test?

We shouldn't.

Alito's original promise to the Reagan Administration led to his employment then, and his original promise to the Reagan Administration plus his subsequent judicial record are tantamount to a promise to Bush and the Neo-cons now.

The notion that because then sought a political job and now he seeks a job that should be free from politics further exemplifies my claim that he and his type, "Strict Judicial Constructionists," are intellectually dishonest and beholden to their Neo-con benefactors.