Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

-Barack Obama's controversial nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
-Rhodes Scholar
-Stanford, Oxford, Yale alum
-Professor at Berkeley

The question that properly guides interpretation is not how the Constitution would have been applied at the Founding, but rather how it should be applied today in order to sustain its vitality in light of the changing needs, conditions, and understandings of our society.

Discuss!

oh crap

Sounds like a great judicial candidate that understands the reality of today. the Founder's intended it to be a living document, not fossilized.

dbackjon wrote:Sounds like a great judicial candidate that understands the reality of today. the Founder's intended it to be a living document, not fossilized.

I am going to barf

Just lovely... yet another Berkley liberal legislating from the bench in what is already the most overturned appeals court.

dbackjon wrote:Sounds like a great judicial candidate that understands the reality of today. the Founder's intended it to be a living document, not fossilized.

I agree...that's why they gave us a method to update it...

You will not find any writings that it was their intention for judges to update it from the bench based on their opinion of what it should say...

This guy is no better at his job than the guy down the street at the 7-11.

Except the guy at the 7-11 probably knows more about the constitution since he had to study it to get his citizenship.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:This guy is no better at his job than the guy down the street at the 7-11.

Except the guy at the 7-11 probably knows more about the constitution since he had to study it to get his citizenship.

So, it was a tough test?

One of the brightest legal minds in the country today.

He's not a through and through "liberal" but he is most certainly not a constructionist.

Believes the Constitution supports:
Gay marriage
National health care
Affirmative action
School vouchers
Free market system
Charter schools

Clearly not all "liberal" thoughts.
He's also got some pretty strong conservative legal support, including Ken Star.

While you may disagree with him on the "living document" theory, there are many Consitutional scholars that are much brighter and more well versed in Constitutional history than anyone here that believe he's right. Just as there are those who believe he's wrong. There is not one right answer to that question, IMO.

danefan wrote:One of the brightest legal minds in the country today.

He's not a through and through "liberal" but he is most certainly not a constructionist.

Believes the Constitution supports:
Gay marriage
National health care
Affirmative action
School vouchers
Free market system
Charter schools

Clearly not all "liberal" thoughts.
He's also got some pretty strong conservative legal support, including Ken Star.

While you may disagree with him on the "living document" theory, there are many Consitutional scholars that are much brighter and more well versed in Constitutional history than anyone here that believe he's right. Just as there are those who believe he's wrong. There is not one right answer to that question, IMO.

Seems like a no-brainer that the founding fathers understood that time didn't stop in the 18th century and things would change and our system would have to change with them..

danefan wrote:One of the brightest legal minds in the country today.

He's not a through and through "liberal" but he is most certainly not a constructionist.

Believes the Constitution supports:
Gay marriage
National health care
Affirmative action
School vouchers
Free market system
Charter schools

Clearly not all "liberal" thoughts.
He's also got some pretty strong conservative legal support, including Ken Star.

While you may disagree with him on the "living document" theory, there are many Consitutional scholars that are much brighter and more well versed in Constitutional history than anyone here that believe he's right. Just as there are those who believe he's wrong. There is not one right answer to that question, IMO.

my thoughts exactly, but I don't like the whole "Living Constitution" thing which is why I don't like him. I do concede that I am not well educated in the subject to adequately debate

houndawg wrote:

danefan wrote:One of the brightest legal minds in the country today.

He's not a through and through "liberal" but he is most certainly not a constructionist.

Believes the Constitution supports:
Gay marriage
National health care
Affirmative action
School vouchers
Free market system
Charter schools

Clearly not all "liberal" thoughts.
He's also got some pretty strong conservative legal support, including Ken Star.

While you may disagree with him on the "living document" theory, there are many Consitutional scholars that are much brighter and more well versed in Constitutional history than anyone here that believe he's right. Just as there are those who believe he's wrong. There is not one right answer to that question, IMO.

Seems like a no-brainer that the founding fathers understood that time didn't stop in the 18th century and things would change and our system would have to change with them..

It's called a Constitutiona Amendment. Look it up.

dbackjon wrote:the Founder's intended it to be a living document, not fossilized.

Prove it.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Seems like a no-brainer that the founding fathers understood that time didn't stop in the 18th century and things would change and our system would have to change with them..

It's called a Constitutiona Amendment. Look it up.

No one is arguing that Courts should be able to add/remove words from the Constitution. The "living document" versus "Constructionist" theories differ in what can be used to interpret the words of the Constitution as they are currently written - what we know and live with today? Or what the writers of the Constitution knew and lived with when the document was drafted?

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:the Founder's intended it to be a living document, not fossilized.

Prove it.

Prove that they didn't intend it that way.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
It's called a Constitutiona Amendment. Look it up.

No one is arguing that Courts should be able to add/remove words from the Constitution. The "living document" versus "Constructionist" theories differ in what can be used to interpret the words of the Constitution as they are currently written - what we know and live with today? Or what the writers of the Constitution knew and lived with when the document was drafted?

So where is it written that we have a right to national healthcare? Gay marriage? School vouchers? Affirmative Action? How/what is he interpreting that would lead him to believe it supports ANY of these?

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
No one is arguing that Courts should be able to add/remove words from the Constitution. The "living document" versus "Constructionist" theories differ in what can be used to interpret the words of the Constitution as they are currently written - what we know and live with today? Or what the writers of the Constitution knew and lived with when the document was drafted?

So where is it written that we have a right to national healthcare? Gay marriage? School vouchers? Affirmative Action? How/what is he interpreting that would lead him to believe it supports ANY of these?

All of these are interpretations of the language in the constitution.

For example, a lot people (including Liu) believe gay marriage should be protected by the language of the 14th Amendment.

You have a just argument to say these interpretations are wrong. And a constructionalist would argue that the writers of the 14th amendment would have never even thought of gay marriage, so how then, could the 14th Amendment apply?

Have a read at Page 5 of this http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/legal/i ... karlan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Its the Amicus brief filed in the California challenging the previous law in CA. It was filed by 18 law professors, including Liu, and provides a pretty detailed argument on the "living document" theory as it applies to gay marriage.

dbackjon wrote:Sounds like a great judicial candidate that understands the reality of today. the Founder's intended it to be a living document, not fossilized.

In other words, Words don't have meaning. Intent of the law is not important. Laws mean what we want them to mean

danefan wrote:One of the brightest legal minds in the country today.

He's not a through and through "liberal" but he is most certainly not a constructionist.

Believes the Constitution supports:
Gay marriage
National health care
Affirmative action
School vouchers
Free market system
Charter schools

Clearly not all "liberal" thoughts.
He's also got some pretty strong conservative legal support, including Ken Star.

While you may disagree with him on the "living document" theory, there are many Consitutional scholars that are much brighter and more well versed in Constitutional history than anyone here that believe he's right. Just as there are those who believe he's wrong. There is not one right answer to that question, IMO.

There is a right answer. a law that is a moving target, is not a law.

It should not be a matter of whether the positions are liberal or conservative. It should matter what the text intended. For a judge to say what the founders intended is not important is an abomination

What it says is "I know what the constitution should say" Very sad.

danefan wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Prove it.

Prove that they didn't intend it that way.

Too late. I asked first.

Feel free to give jon a hand if you want.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So where is it written that we have a right to national healthcare? Gay marriage? School vouchers? Affirmative Action? How/what is he interpreting that would lead him to believe it supports ANY of these?

All of these are interpretations of the language in the constitution.

For example, a lot people (including Liu) believe gay marriage should be protected by the language of the 14th Amendment.

You have a just argument to say these interpretations are wrong. And a constructionalist would argue that the writers of the 14th amendment would have never even thought of gay marriage, so how then, could the 14th Amendment apply?

Have a read at Page 5 of this http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/legal/i ... karlan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Its the Amicus brief filed in the California challenging the previous law in CA. It was filed by 18 law professors, including Liu, and provides a pretty detailed argument on the "living document" theory as it applies to gay marriage.

df, they are simply saying in their argument that we see things differently today than the framers and therefore, we should enforce the laws differently...

If that is the case, why did the framers also include a process to change the Constitution? Obviously, they understood it would need changing otherwise it would become a useless document?

Baldy wrote:

danefan wrote:
Prove that they didn't intend it that way.

Too late. I asked first.

Feel free to give jon a hand if you want.

I can't prove it. Never said I could. It also doesn't make sense to me that the writers of the Constitution would draft a document that needed to be amended every day. Our society is so much different than it was 50 years ago, let alone ~250.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:One of the brightest legal minds in the country today.

He's not a through and through "liberal" but he is most certainly not a constructionist.

Believes the Constitution supports:
Gay marriage
National health care
Affirmative action
School vouchers
Free market system
Charter schools

Clearly not all "liberal" thoughts.
He's also got some pretty strong conservative legal support, including Ken Star.

While you may disagree with him on the "living document" theory, there are many Consitutional scholars that are much brighter and more well versed in Constitutional history than anyone here that believe he's right. Just as there are those who believe he's wrong. There is not one right answer to that question, IMO.

There is a right answer. a law that is a moving target, is not a law.

It should not be a matter of whether the positions are liberal or conservative. It should matter what the text intended. For a judge to say what the founders intended is not important is an abomination

What it says is "I know what the constitution should say" Very sad.

So you are going all the way back to Marbury vs. Madison then and arguing that SCOTUS doesn't even have the power of Judisicial Review?

What are we supposed to do when we run across a situation like electronic search and seizure. There's no way the writers of the 4th Amendment thought about infrared cameras in helicopters when they used the word "unreasonable." So does that mean we just have no answer to that situation when it comes up? Or that we need to ask for a state by state referendum to amend the Constitution to deal with that issue?

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:
There is a right answer. a law that is a moving target, is not a law.

It should not be a matter of whether the positions are liberal or conservative. It should matter what the text intended. For a judge to say what the founders intended is not important is an abomination

What it says is "I know what the constitution should say" Very sad.

So you are going all the way back to Marbury vs. Madison then and arguing that SCOTUS doesn't even have the power of Judisicial Review?

What are we supposed to do when we run across a situation like electronic search and seizure. There's no way the writers of the 4th Amendment thought about infrared cameras in helicopters when they used the word "unreasonablle." So does that mean we just have no answer to that situation when it comes up? Or that we need to ask for a state by state referendum to amend the Constitution to deal with that issue?

BINGO!

You can use intent - but you have to interpret how the intent would apply to modern situations that the Founders would have no clue would exist.

houndawg wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:This guy is no better at his job than the guy down the street at the 7-11.

Except the guy at the 7-11 probably knows more about the constitution since he had to study it to get his citizenship.

So, it was a tough test?

Si'