Interesting thoughts.......
A link was given to me today by Three Score and Ten or more of a review that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of a book. In this review (which I recommend that all of you go and read)Justice Scalia says the following:
The rest of the review is eqalling thought provoking. I will warn you that it is also a bit convoluted.
I am curious as to what you find intruiging, interesting, or terrifying about this bit of writing.
But in a democracy, it is not the function of law to establish any more social policy than what is fairly expressed by legislation, enacted through prescribed democratic procedures. It troubles Smith, but does not at all trouble me --— in fact, it pleases me -- —that giving the words of the Constitution their normal meaning would "“expel from the domain of legal issues . . . most of the constitutional disputes that capture our attention," such as "“Can a macho military educational institution dedicated to what is euphemistically called the 'adversative'’ method admit only men? Is there a right to abortion? Or to the assistance of a physician in ending oneÃ’s life?"” If we should read English as English, Smith bemoans, Ã"these questions would seemingly all have received the same answer: '‘No law on that one.'"”
That is precisely the answer they should have received: The federal Constitution says nothing on these subjects, which are therefore left to be governed by state law.
The rest of the review is eqalling thought provoking. I will warn you that it is also a bit convoluted.
I am curious as to what you find intruiging, interesting, or terrifying about this bit of writing.
posted by exMI | 18:46
2 Comments:
11 01 05
EXMI:
Great post, in case you don't visit Eddie's site again, here was my response to you and stuffle:
11 01 05
Stuffle and exmi:
I see what you are saying, but I will clarify by saying that the abolition of slavery could have occured if we extended THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO BLACKS IN THE FIRST PLACE! That is what I am trying to say here, that the principles on which the Amendments are based still clarify what is already in the Constitution. Prohibition should have never occured because it is a clear violation of PRIVACY so cherished in the Bill of Rights. And exmi I will view your site; I think what I was getting at here was if all of the Bill of rights were applied equally across the board to EVERYONE; someof the Amendments would not have been necessary; that is all. Thx for the clarifications guys!
I think the essence of the Constitution should not change. It speaks to freedom and independence and those ideals will always be valued in our society. How it is interpreted is different and I agree that if the Constitution didn't specifically mention those prickly topics of abortion or euthanasia it SHD go to the states. Each state determines what it deems acceptable so there would be a lot of variation in how laws were applied. But I get really nervous when Amendments come up because I feel as though those processes shd be left to Congress and or the States. To see an example of what our country MIGHT have been like if we did things differently post Civil War, see this link. BTW, I like your blog and the topics you cover!
http://mrigmaiden.blogspot.com/2005/09/rehnquistians-browns-and-thomases.html
11 01 05
Hello EXMI:
I got an email with a comment from you, but cldn't find where it was on the blog. So thx for the response and you make sense. Regarding drug laws,I also agree. I think states shd determine them. CA already has to an extent with medical maryjane, so...
Your blog is nice and you ask interesting questions. I will come visit again:)
Post a Comment
<< Home