CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
(various Emphasis Added)
(various Emphasis Added)
NEVER FORGET !
Before we delve into the "chaos" of judicial review of the constitution it should be noted that this common usage of the term judicial review is more accurately described as constitutional Review. This is because there is another form of judicial review, administrative review that looks at actions of administrators, measuring their actions against existing standards such as reasonableness and abuse, rather than the Constitution.
There are several methods, or "theories" of how the Court should go about determining the "meaning" of the Constitution. Probably the most important distinctions between the various theories lies in what the "nature" of the Constitution is. Those who seek to interpret the Constitution fall into two, primary, schools of thought:
Originalists: Originalists are those who understood the history that brought about our great nation. They understand that the founders, having recent, violent, despotic experience with the British system of a monarchy, had an extremely deep fear and suspicion of government. They did everything they could to produce a Constitution that would strictly limit the power of a central government while protecting the rights of the people of the SOVEREIGN STATES that formed the republic.
Thomas Jefferson would have been a proponent of Originalism:
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and, instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Non-Originalists: Non-originalists view the Constitution as a barricade preventing them from ever expanding the power of government "for the good of the (collective) people" - the State! Basically, these people (and 4 current justices) believe that the Justices should be able to "rewrite" the constitution to fit their personal views or the latest "popular" fashion. To cover up their attempts to destroy the rule of law they came up with, what has been described as, "A pretty euphemism"(D) - “The Living Constitution”
Barry Obama was very clearly an enemy of the existing constitution and a supporter of non-originalism (radio interview prior to election):
"As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"
(Speaking about the Constitution) "...a charter of negative liberties that says what the states can't do to you, says what the Federal Government can't do to you [That's what it's supposed to do!] but it doesn't say what the federal government, or the state government, must do, on your behalf."
It is pretty clear that Obama considered adhering to the Constitution as being "radical" and that he, very obviously resented how the Constitution prevented him from doing whatever his dark, wrinkled, socialst heart felt like doing - to anyone! It is also completely obvious why the (socialist) Commiecrats in Congress are acting like a crazed pack of fascists trying to block the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaught to the Supreme Court!
There are several theories on which specific aspects of the law should be used in making a determination:
"Strict Constructionism" holds that a judge must interpret a law strictly on the exact text of the law. Once a clear meaning of the text is understood the investigation stops. As we have seen, this method ignores both Blackstone and the concept of etymology(D) leading to an "absurd consequence".
"Textualism looks at the statutory structure and hears the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words. The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text.
Under Originalism there are three theories that are often confused":
"Original Intent holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.
"Original Understanding refers to the subjective opinion of the 1,648 state convention delegates who ratified the Constitution."
The argument against original intent and original understanding is that both depend on the subjective opinions of those who wrote the Constitution and of the state convention delegates who ratified the Constitution. These, opponents claim, are too hard to determine.
"Original Meaning - interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be"
Original Meaning has become the prominent view of Originalism today and most originalists are associated with it. Justice Scalia was, perhaps, one of the more noted recent advocates of it.
In the next sections we need to review the basic principles underlying society, government and the American form of Government before examining the motive, methods and perpetrators of the assault.
There are several methods, or "theories" of how the Court should go about determining the "meaning" of the Constitution. Probably the most important distinctions between the various theories lies in what the "nature" of the Constitution is. Those who seek to interpret the Constitution fall into two, primary, schools of thought:
Originalists: Originalists are those who understood the history that brought about our great nation. They understand that the founders, having recent, violent, despotic experience with the British system of a monarchy, had an extremely deep fear and suspicion of government. They did everything they could to produce a Constitution that would strictly limit the power of a central government while protecting the rights of the people of the SOVEREIGN STATES that formed the republic.
Thomas Jefferson would have been a proponent of Originalism:
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and, instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Non-Originalists: Non-originalists view the Constitution as a barricade preventing them from ever expanding the power of government "for the good of the (collective) people" - the State! Basically, these people (and 4 current justices) believe that the Justices should be able to "rewrite" the constitution to fit their personal views or the latest "popular" fashion. To cover up their attempts to destroy the rule of law they came up with, what has been described as, "A pretty euphemism"(D) - “The Living Constitution”
Barry Obama was very clearly an enemy of the existing constitution and a supporter of non-originalism (radio interview prior to election):
"As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"
(Speaking about the Constitution) "...a charter of negative liberties that says what the states can't do to you, says what the Federal Government can't do to you [That's what it's supposed to do!] but it doesn't say what the federal government, or the state government, must do, on your behalf."
It is pretty clear that Obama considered adhering to the Constitution as being "radical" and that he, very obviously resented how the Constitution prevented him from doing whatever his dark, wrinkled, socialst heart felt like doing - to anyone! It is also completely obvious why the (socialist) Commiecrats in Congress are acting like a crazed pack of fascists trying to block the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaught to the Supreme Court!
There are several theories on which specific aspects of the law should be used in making a determination:
"Strict Constructionism" holds that a judge must interpret a law strictly on the exact text of the law. Once a clear meaning of the text is understood the investigation stops. As we have seen, this method ignores both Blackstone and the concept of etymology(D) leading to an "absurd consequence".
"Textualism looks at the statutory structure and hears the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words. The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text.
Under Originalism there are three theories that are often confused":
"Original Intent holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.
"Original Understanding refers to the subjective opinion of the 1,648 state convention delegates who ratified the Constitution."
The argument against original intent and original understanding is that both depend on the subjective opinions of those who wrote the Constitution and of the state convention delegates who ratified the Constitution. These, opponents claim, are too hard to determine.
"Original Meaning - interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be"
Original Meaning has become the prominent view of Originalism today and most originalists are associated with it. Justice Scalia was, perhaps, one of the more noted recent advocates of it.
In the next sections we need to review the basic principles underlying society, government and the American form of Government before examining the motive, methods and perpetrators of the assault.