[brlug-poly] Constructionist or Interpretationalist

[Dustin Puryear]

The Founders saw the Supreme Court as a way to police the other two branches
as well as to help intervene when the two branches contradicted one another.
Additionally, the Supreme Court provides a single Federal entity that can
unify lower Federal courts when they too contradict one another (e.g., if
one lower court nullifies a law while another upholds it). Finally, the
Founders explicitly gave the Supreme Court the ultimate power to determine
the constitutionality of laws, so I think it would be a hard argument to
propose otherwise.

At least, that's how I see it.

So I look for a Supreme Court that understands its role in the Federal
government.

Judicial activism is another matter, and one that every Party in the history
of the US has been guilty of fostering. It's hard to really define judicial
activitism though since it's normally the term used by the losers to
describe a decision with which they disagree.

---
Puryear Information Technology, LLC
Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414
http://www.puryear-it.com

Author of "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers"
Download your free copy:
http://www.puryear-it.com/bestpractices.htm

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Riddle" <doug_riddle at yahoo.com>
To: <Politics at brlug.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:46 AM
Subject: [brlug-poly] Constructionist or Interpretationalist


> Here is a timely political question:
>
> What type of jurists do we need on the supreme court?
>
> The constructionists/origininalists want to see
> jurists that try to abide by the framer's intent,
> meaning that the constitution, and its ammendments,
> should be viewed in the light of what the authors of
> the constitution and the authors of the ammendements
> meant to accomplish when they penned and ratified the
> constitution and subsequent ammendments.  By this they
> intend to leave the creation of laws and modification
> of the constitution with the congress and the body of
> the electorate.
>
> Interpretationalist seem to think that the ammendment
> process is too slow to adapt to societal needs and
> that the judges should act as mediators between an
> increasingly divisive congress and the sociatal sheep,
> the helpless, hapless masses of non-voting sheep.
>
> The Louisiana statewide election of October the 15th,
> 2005, had a 13% turnout.  13 people out of a hundred
> showed up to direct their government on how to run
> their business and spend their money.
>
> As sad a state of affairs as that is, it still beats
> the snot out of having nine people in robes in
> Washington DC tell two branches of governemnt what
> laws to write.
>
> If you want justice, bring your cause to the people.
> There is a reason a jury of your peers can vacate a
> law.  Your peers can tell justice and a law's intent
> from the letter of the law.  However, when a jury does
> that, it is a one time only event.  When a Jurist does
> it, it is precedent, and becomes codified.
>
> A jury of your peers elected the people that wrote the
> laws, and can, in certain circumstances, over-ride
> them on a case-by-case basis.  A Jurist should never
> be allowed to second-guess an elected body.
>
> An example from real life.  A woman is beaten by her
> husband repeatedly for years.  Their son grows to be
> about thirteen and dad starts in on him.  Mom tries to
> defend him and dad knocks mom out; son shoots dad
> twelve times.  The prosecution claims that since son
> had to stop and find the box of bullets and reload the
> revolver it constitutes second degree murder, a crime
> of passion, rather than manslaughter, a fit of
> reaction and anger, and certainly not an attempt to
> protect his mother because trace evidence indicates he
> searched for the bullets, reloaded the pistol, and
> emptied into dear old dad again before checking to see
> whether or not mom was OK.
>
> The defense case is pretty weak.  A lot of people who
> should have come forward a long time ago testified
> about the years of abuse.  Neither mom or son remember
> a blessed thing about the death of dear old dad.  Mom
> was out cold, and son doesn't remember coming home
> from school that day.
>
> The prosecution wants junior tried as an adult, and
> given the gravity of the case, it is.  The prosecution
> wants junior to get twenty to life.  After all Mr.
> District Attorney has designs on political office, and
> a tough-on-crime record would help.
>
> The jury of registered voters vacates the law and
> finds junior innocent of all charges.  A jury can do
> that.  A jurist, or judge, cannot.
>
> A jurist can vacate a law by declaring it
> unconstitutional, and they need scant reason for doing
> so, but they cannot vacate a law in the way a jury
> can.
>
> A jury can let one person go because they perceive the
> letter of the law in a single case being applied in a
> fashion contrary to the intent of a law.
>
> A jurist can sweep away a law because they perceive
> the intent of a law being contrary to their views of
> law.
>
> So, I ask again, what sort of supreme court justice
> should we hope for?
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Doug Riddle
> http://www.dougriddle.com
> "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
> - Ambrose Bierce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politics mailing list
> Politics at brlug.net
> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/politics_brlug.net
>
>