Chief Justice Antonin Scalia?

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I've seen occasional glimmers of true strict construtionism from Thomas, but not nearly enough.

I wonder, wouldn't most of the Founders(the ones who actually designed the Constitution) be considered right-wing today? And no cheap shots about slavery or discrimination, I'm talking about the substance of the Bill of Rights and powers of federal government vis a vis States. And no, I'm not saying they all believed EXACTLY the same things. NOt at all.

If they were to be pegged into any political ideology they would most likely be Libertarians.

An old but interesting read...

http://www.lpmich.org/op-ed/oped1200.htm

In Memoriam: The Bill of Rights

Last Friday, while the rest of the country continued the seemingly endless debate over which sixth of the population's votes actually reflected "the will of the people" in the last presidential election, most libertarians took a moment to commemorate the Bill of Rights -- the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. And they eulogized on the 209th anniversary of the adoption of that inspired and inspiring document about the freedoms it sought in vain to protect.

After two centuries of "interpreting," only one of the ten has actually survived completely unscathed. Taking them in no particular order, see if, by process of elimination, you can guess which one it is.

Lets start with No. 7. This one guarantees the right to a jury trial in all civil matters where the amount in dispute is more than $20, and that the legal system shall be governed according to the principles of common law.

Under the Coinage Act of 1794 the "Eagle," or "$10 piece," was precisely defined as 270 grains of standard gold. Thus, until the creation of the Federal Reserve system early in the 20th century, our money was fixed; our monetary system was, quite literally, "as sound as a dollar."

Unfortunately, subsequent inflation made possible by the issuance of printing-press money for the last hundred years has rendered the original $20 minimum absurd.

As for common law, it's principles still hold some sway in criminal matters, but are otherwise regarded as the quaint affectations of a bygone era, their necessity in civil law having been preempted by the licensing and regulatory state.

Well, then, how about No. 2 -- the fabled "right to keep and bear arms"?

This amendment undoubtedly has more ardent defenders and opponents than any of the other nine. Nevertheless, despite the hand-wringing of gun control advocates over what is left of it, I wouldn't advise walking around with a .357 in your pocket and waving a copy of the Constitution as your "gun permit."

The reason there is so much confusion about the intent of the Second Amendment is because most people today don't realize that in the eighteenth century it was their government that Americans didn't trust -- not their fellow citizens.

Is the intact amendment No. 4? This one is supposed to protect us from "unreasonable search and seizure" and require "probable cause" for a search or arrest.

The framers insisted on these protections because they remembered bitterly the "Writs of Assistance" -- basically, general search warrants -- issued by the British Crown prior to the revolution in a (futile) effort to clamp down on smuggling.

Search warrant requirements have now been all but eliminated in order to wage the War on Drugs, that is, in a (futile) effort to clamp down on smuggling. Ironic, isn't it?

And "probable cause"? Nowadays, simply matching a police profile is considered sufficient.

Okay, but surely the First Amendment continues to serve.

"Free speech"? Ask the tobacco companies, which are prohibited from TV advertising, about free speech.

"Free exercise of religion"? Native American ceremonies pre-dating the United States by centuries have been criminalized -- another compromise for the sake of drug prohibition.

And "peaceable assembly"? Only with a government granted permit.

Well, how about Nos. 9 and 10? These two were included to make it absolutely clear that no central government powers should be inferred from the omission of restrictions in the Bill of Rights. They formally retain any powers not expressly given the federal government to the individual states or to the people themselves.

But today, our federal government does precisely what these amendments explicitly reject, taking for granted the authority to do anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Could it be No. 6? This one guarantees a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of your peers.

Intended to insulate Americans from persecution under unjust laws, it has been stood on its head by the courts which now instruct juries that the judge will define and rule on the appropriateness and application of the law, restricting the jury to mere trier of fact. This, of course, renders moot the original purpose of even having a jury.

How about No. 8? This one is supposed to prohibit both "excessive fines and bail" and "cruel and unusual punishment."

It has become yet another casualty of the all-consuming Drug Jihad.

What would the drafters of the Bill of Rights have thought about forfeiting your home because your teenager grew some marijuana plants in the backyard without your knowledge? How about life in prison for mere possession of certain, refined plant products? Since we don't have capital punishment in Michigan that is the severest penalty possible under law -- the same as for premeditated murder.

Maybe it's No. 5, the one that requires "due process of law" and prohibits both "double jeopardy" and "self-incrimination"?

Please! Today the IRS can take your bank account, the coast guard can take your boat, the welfare authorities can even take your children, prior to any process at all -- "due" or otherwise.

"Double jeopardy"? It has become a routine tactic for prosecutors to argue that, for instance, a murder for which the defendant was acquitted under state law also represented a violation of the victim's "civil rights," bringing new charges for precisely the same act, only under federal law.

And "Self-incrimination"? I have yet to hear an explanation of how one can comply with the Internal Revenue code without waiving this right.

So that leaves only one of the original ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights still intact. If you guessed No. 3, you win.

What protection has survived more than two centuries of statist assault?

If you don't know, I think I'll leave it to you to look it up. And, perhaps, in the process you'll reflect for a moment on the nine that have been lost.

[skinsarethebest]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I've seen occasional glimmers of true strict construtionism from Thomas, but not nearly enough.

I wonder, wouldn't most of the Founders(the ones who actually designed the Constitution) be considered right-wing today? And no cheap shots about slavery or discrimination, I'm talking about the substance of the Bill of Rights and powers of federal government vis a vis States. And no, I'm not saying they all believed EXACTLY the same things. NOt at all.

the issue of somehow figuring out the Founders' intent is of course an interesting issue, and one which of course won't be solved simply because it CAN'T be solved, i.e., not possible to actually get into the heads of old dead guys from the 18th century

you may very well be right, i.e., the Founders themselves might well have taken a position that falls into what we today would call "right wing" thinking -- but i'd still be skeptical of this for a couple of reasons -- for one thing, it's an argument that's pulled out of the hat WAY too often by those on the right to somehow assert the "correctness" of their particular POV

-- more importantly, at the end of the day, what GOOD does it really do? The Founders almost certainly never envisioned the sorts of debates that evolved out of the application of the US Const to all facets of American life --- i.e., abortion, segregation, internet pornography -- in fact, this was arguably the VERY REASON the Const was put into place in the first place -- i.e. to be an organic "template" that is meant to evolve, not be fixed into some mechanical set of rules -- i guess what i'm trying to say is that relying too much on the Founders' intent in drafting the Constitution, at least at the level of trying to pin down what their official "stance" on a given issue would be, is possibly an exercise that goes against the grain of what the Constitution is supposed to do in the first place

[Ghost of]

JP

I've gotten into disagreements with many people who want to pretend to be 'above the fray' by saying "libertarian" as if it isn't right-wing.

The reason I call libertarianism a form of rightist thought is because too many of the planks of the ideology conform to the other rightists in the spectrum. They conform to almost none in the left, as currently constituted.

That isn't to say there aren't violent disagreements(drug war, for one) but I don't see that much kinship with the left EXCEPT on the consensual crimes.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by skinsarethebest

the issue of somehow figuring out the Founders' intent is of course an interesting issue, and one which of course won't be solved simply because it CAN'T be solved, i.e., not possible to actually get into the heads of old dead guys from the 18th century

you may very well be right, i.e., the Founders themselves might well have taken a position that falls into what we today would call "right wing" thinking -- but i'd still be skeptical of this for a couple of reasons -- for one thing, it's an argument that's pulled out of the hat WAY too often by those on the right to somehow assert the "correctness" of their particular POV

-- more importantly, at the end of the day, what GOOD does it really do? The Founders almost certainly never envisioned the sorts of debates that evolved out of the application of the US Const to all facets of American life --- i.e., abortion, segregation, internet pornography -- in fact, this was arguably the VERY REASON the Const was put into place in the first place -- i.e. to be an organic "template" that is meant to evolve, not be fixed into some mechanical set of rules -- i guess what i'm trying to say is that relying too much on the Founders' intent in drafting the Constitution, at least at the level of trying to pin down what their official "stance" on a given issue would be, is possibly an exercise that goes against the grain of what the Constitution is supposed to do in the first place

Actually, there are thousands of pages of work from the Framers AND contemporary judges on many of the issues we face.

And I don't agree with your 'organic template.' that's a justification for corruption of the language and the destruction of liberty. Of course, that's why the left embraces it the most(but not exclusively, of course.)

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

JP

I've gotten into disagreements with many people who want to pretend to be 'above the fray' by saying "libertarian" as if it isn't right-wing.

The reason I call libertarianism a form of rightist thought is because too many of the planks of the ideology conform to the other rightists in the spectrum. They conform to almost none in the left, as currently constituted.

That isn't to say there aren't violent disagreements(drug war, for one) but I don't see that much kinship with the left EXCEPT on the consensual crimes.

I agree for the most part.

However, there are some morality issues Libertarians side with the left on.

[luckydevil]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

JP

I've gotten into disagreements with many people who want to pretend to be 'above the fray' by saying "libertarian" as if it isn't right-wing.

The reason I call libertarianism a form of rightist thought is because too many of the planks of the ideology conform to the other rightists in the spectrum. They conform to almost none in the left, as currently constituted.

That isn't to say there aren't violent disagreements(drug war, for one) but I don't see that much kinship with the left EXCEPT on the consensual crimes.

I don't indentify myself with the right at all anymore. I feel I have more in common with folks on the left.

And yes libertarianism is above the fray

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I think it's funny that only the conservatives are 'far out of the mainstream' while the liberals are 'moderate'.

That's because the people we are talking about are judges. And like I noted before, it is the Republicans have been appointing extremist Justices. Hence "out of the mainstream" Justice Scalia, but no "out of the mainstream" Justice Catherine McKinnon for us to discuss.

Our liberal embarassments get mocked and marginalized, your conservative embarassments get lifetime terms on the appellate courts.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Yeah, we'll just have to disagree. I see Kennedy and Oconnor as mainstream LIBERALs. Ginsberg is a Socialist.

You think Anthony Kennedy is a mainstream liberal?

I honsetly do not know how to respond to that.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by luckydevil

I don't indentify myself with the right at all anymore. I feel I have more in common with folks on the left.

And yes libertarianism is above the fray

I know you've said that, and certainly I experience a major sense of division from many on the right.

But if you think that it really is above the fray(yes, there are communitarians and others who criticize the libertarians from the right) but you'd have to look at the libertarians that DO form a bloc of support in the mainstream right and the think tanks.

In the book, "Right Nation" they detail how libertarian-tinged SW/Westerners and the think tanks have influenced the overall 'conservative movement.' Before, many of the religious right wouldn't have given a crap about anything related to the free market. Now they at least offer token support.

This isn't about WANTING to claim a bond, just that it's there.

Show me the Libertarian Wing of the Democratic Party(abortion is a tricky issue and gay rights isn't representative of an entire ideology)

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by portisizzle

Why do you draw a distinction between Liberal and Socialist?

I'm pretty sure but I want to be crystal clear: you are joking here, right?

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

I'm pretty sure but I want to be crystal clear: you are joking here, right?

I don't want speak for portis but he prob just making a generalization for the left wing in the US.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

I don't want speak for portis but he prob just making a generalization for the left wing in the US.

If that's true, then that's demonstrating a really shocking lack of perspective.