Waiting to Exhale. Thoughts on the day before the 2008 Election.

[APearson]

To be honest the idea of a return to a Nation based on Laws not men will be every bit as rapturous as any prevailing legal theories.

[JaxByDefault]

Nice sentiment, but laws have to be applied -- a process that will always include the women and men of the bar.

Disagreements on legal theory do not mean we are no longer a nation of laws. If anything, they evidence a clear and passionate dedication to the letter and spirit of those laws.

For those who doubt President-elect Obama's dedication to consititutional scholarship or ability to unpack complex legal issues, the following link is a critique of Obama's teaching materials by his peers: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/inside-professor-obamas-classroom.

[GatorDone]

Now at last, they will be applied.

... and if he and his Congressional cohorts don't like the law they will just eliminate it. You know we are not suppose to infringe on the rights of those wanting to harm our country but we should stand by as the media uses information taken in an even more intrusive and illegal way for monetary and/or political purposes. 

Whose do we use -- mine or yours? Who decides if originalism, letterism, or living constitutionalism carries the day?

I think you missed the point of my first post as my original statement had nothing to do with the legal philosophy applied to the Constitution. Since you brought up the subject, I personally believe in the original intent of the Constitution but reasonable people can disagree. The problem I have with Obama is his actions do not tell me that he believes our Constitution is a meaningful document - which I believe is an essential job function of an attorney and the President.
   

[RiversideGator]

Nice sentiment, but laws have to be applied -- a process that will always include the women and men of the bar.

Disagreements on legal theory do not mean we are no longer a nation of laws. If anything, they evidence a clear and passionate dedication to the letter and spirit of those laws.

For those who doubt President-elect Obama's dedication to consititutional scholarship or ability to unpack complex legal issues, the following link is a critique of Obama's teaching materials by his peers: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/inside-professor-obamas-classroom.

I have no doubt that Obama knows constitutional law quite well.  I believe he taught the subject.  This is why so many of his interviews sound like navel gazing law school bull sessions.  The problem is Obama subscribes to the wrong theory of constitutional law.  Specifically, he believes the Constitution is an evolving document which "evolves" by judicial fiat whereas I, and many conservatives, believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning and purpose until such time as it is amended using the proper, legal channels.

[BridgeTroll]

the Constitution has a fixed meaning and purpose until such time as it is amended using the proper, legal channels.

This is my belief as well.  If the Constitution is flawed as has been shown in the past.  Amend it properly.  If there is a "right to privacy" ie abortion... then amend the constitution.

[RiversideGator]

How Clintonian of the two of you.

If things are so obvious that any reasonable person can see them plainly do you really have to spell it out.

What is the meaning of 'is'?

The neoconservatives drove this country straight into a ditch.  Its hard to get worked up about their opinions much anymore.

When will the Left drop the "neoconservative" line??

River, we have seen your Strict Construction opinion of the Constitution in action over the issues of unwarranted searches via electronic surveillance, torture, and whether or not the treaties of the United States have the weight of Law granted to them in the Constitution. 

The cases and situations you are referring to are not inconsistent with a philosophy of strict construction.

Your opinion as to the bizarre and traitorous 'Unitary Executive" theory and your condemnation of the Constitutionally described role of the Speaker of the House to travel to foreign countries and fact find did not seem to waver one bit in the face of your 'strict constitution' nonsense.  Please spare the gastric processes of the people around you by nevery using the argument again.

I am not even sure what you are talking about here frankly.

You just spent three years of the most anti constitutional argumentation that I every thought it would be my dishonor to listen to, and Im afraid youve poisoned your own well on this.

Amusing that someone who just voted for the most radical Presidential candidate in American history would attempt to claim that he was a supporter of the constitution as written.

You are correct that a real conservative believes in strict construction of the constitution. 

Thank you.

[tufsu1]

The problem is Obama subscribes to the wrong theory of constitutional law.  Specifically, he believes the Constitution is an evolving document which "evolves" by judicial fiat whereas I, and many conservatives, believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning and purpose until such time as it is amended using the proper, legal channels.

So its not a living, breathing document that evolves over time...I would submit that the authors of it would not feel the same way.

That said, since it is a staic document....please show me where in the Constitution things like abortion are talked about....my understanding is that if the Constitution doesn't state something, then its left up to the states to make their own rules....so why do so many "strict constructionists" so bent on outlawing abortion?

[uptowngirl]

Why is the supreme court so bent on making rulings on it then? Shouldn't it like marriage be left up to the states to decide?

[BridgeTroll]

The problem is Obama subscribes to the wrong theory of constitutional law.  Specifically, he believes the Constitution is an evolving document which "evolves" by judicial fiat whereas I, and many conservatives, believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning and purpose until such time as it is amended using the proper, legal channels.

So its not a living, breathing document that evolves over time...I would submit that the authors of it would not feel the same way.

That said, since it is a staic document....please show me where in the Constitution things like abortion are talked about....my understanding is that if the Constitution doesn't state something, then its left up to the states to make their own rules....so why do so many "strict constructionists" so bent on outlawing abortion?

No one says it is static!!   The framers CLEARLY understood that the document would change.  In fact these very gifted people gave us a mechanism to make changes.  It has been used many times.  ALL I AM SAYING is IF you think something should be a right... LETS GET IT IN WRITING!!  Healthcare?  Abortion?  Gay Marriage?  The right to drive??  I dont care... use the process that was given to us.  Then there is NO NEED to let political appointees (SCOTUS) to tell us what THEY THINK something says.  If we had used the amendment process the issue of abortion would have been decided already.  If you want a right AMEND the document.

rant over...whew...

[uptowngirl]

Amen brother!

[tufsu1]

Why is the supreme court so bent on making rulings on it then? Shouldn't it like marriage be left up to the states to decide?

the Supreme Court has not weighed in on marriage to my knowledge...and they haven't made any major new rulings on abortion since 1972.

[uptowngirl]

Why is the supreme court so bent on making rulings on it then? Shouldn't it like marriage be left up to the states to decide?

the Supreme Court has not weighed in on marriage to my knowledge...and they haven't made any major new rulings on abortion since 1972.

True, but will be soon, and has been in the state and district courts. If true protection is required, then a constitutional amendment should be made. I am not sure how that would work since certain states have already voted to amend their individual constitutions to ban it. I am (obviously) not a lawyer so have no idea what the repercussions would be. I would find it interesting to see how an overturn of the majority of voters wishes could be squashed by the courts, as the law stands now.