Conservatives and Liberals
We have seen a major difference between conservatives and liberals in the process of selecting the last two Supreme Court justices.
Conservatives are focused on selecting judges who will interpret the constitution in the way the original authors, and those who approved the constitution and its ammendements, intended.
Liberals say the constitution is a living document, whose meaning changes so as to adapt itself to the current culture and situations.
Let's think about what each of these positions means, and what practical effect they would have on us.
The constitution is the foundation of all our laws.
If the meaning of the constitution changes over time, we no longer have that foundation. Essentially each day a group of nine people decide what the laws of the land are. One day you are secure in your home, and the next day you discover your local government can take your home and give it to a developer who wants to build a luxury hotel. Surprise! The meaning of the "living document" has changed.
Conservatives also believe the constitution is a living document, but when the law needs to be changed it is not done by nine people. The constitution should always mean what the authors, and those who approved it, intended it to mean. If the law needs to change to adapt to a new culture or situation, that is what amendments are for.
The difference between conservatives and liberals on this issue is a difference in beliefs concerning who can change the law. Conservatives believe that it is congress that changes the law. If the constitution is not serving us well, then there is a process to amend it, as has been done 27 times. Liberals feel that judges have the right to arbitarily change the law. But that's not how our government was set up.
One way to find out who is right is to reverse positions. Until this last week the Supreme Court had been very liberal for a long time. Now it's slightly conservative. Let's say that in the next six months justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires and is replaced by a strong conservative and there is now a strongly conservative Supreme Court. Will liberals still say that the constitution is a living document and judges can interpret to change laws so they are better suited for our current (conservative) culture? I don't think so. That's the flaw in allowing the judiciary to make law. If new situations arise which are not addressed by the original intent of the existing constitutional law, then those situations need to be addressed by new law. That's why we have a legislative branch of government.
Conservatives are focused on selecting judges who will interpret the constitution in the way the original authors, and those who approved the constitution and its ammendements, intended.
Liberals say the constitution is a living document, whose meaning changes so as to adapt itself to the current culture and situations.
Let's think about what each of these positions means, and what practical effect they would have on us.
The constitution is the foundation of all our laws.
If the meaning of the constitution changes over time, we no longer have that foundation. Essentially each day a group of nine people decide what the laws of the land are. One day you are secure in your home, and the next day you discover your local government can take your home and give it to a developer who wants to build a luxury hotel. Surprise! The meaning of the "living document" has changed.
Conservatives also believe the constitution is a living document, but when the law needs to be changed it is not done by nine people. The constitution should always mean what the authors, and those who approved it, intended it to mean. If the law needs to change to adapt to a new culture or situation, that is what amendments are for.
The difference between conservatives and liberals on this issue is a difference in beliefs concerning who can change the law. Conservatives believe that it is congress that changes the law. If the constitution is not serving us well, then there is a process to amend it, as has been done 27 times. Liberals feel that judges have the right to arbitarily change the law. But that's not how our government was set up.
One way to find out who is right is to reverse positions. Until this last week the Supreme Court had been very liberal for a long time. Now it's slightly conservative. Let's say that in the next six months justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires and is replaced by a strong conservative and there is now a strongly conservative Supreme Court. Will liberals still say that the constitution is a living document and judges can interpret to change laws so they are better suited for our current (conservative) culture? I don't think so. That's the flaw in allowing the judiciary to make law. If new situations arise which are not addressed by the original intent of the existing constitutional law, then those situations need to be addressed by new law. That's why we have a legislative branch of government.
posted by SteveH at 5:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home