Greg T.
The Jizz Slinger
Gay marriage law!!
Liberal gun grabbers Fucked by
- Thread starter Greg T.
- Start date
bbfreeburn
Active Member
Interesting and sure to be tested.
Why is it that when a conservative justice sides with a liberal cause he is labeled "activist?" Was he then not always activist? If he was always activist why did conservatives like him? Are they too "activist?" Inquiring minds want to know.
Why is it that when a conservative justice sides with a liberal cause he is labeled "activist?" Was he then not always activist? If he was always activist why did conservatives like him? Are they too "activist?" Inquiring minds want to know.
I believe a judge is an activist any time, regardless of cause, uses the 14th amendment to define rights and liberties that aren't defined in the constitution that would otherwise be defined or created by the legislative branch of our government. Judges in that past have made an opinion that marriage is a fundamental right. Scotus opinions don't make laws. Scotus can only invalidate laws. Everyone is saying that Gay marriage is now legal. Technically, states cannot have laws that prevent gays from marrying if heterosexuals can marry. The Scotus opinion still does not define marriage, at the federal level, as a fundamental right. The Scotus cannot create law. This is why it took the "Civil Rights Act" to pass laws that prohibited discrimination. The Scotus cannot create law or create rights. What does that mean then? States could in fact stop issuing marriage licenses period. Will that happen? No. Congress should have passed a marriage act, period.
If we are going to use the 14th amendment and due process clause in such a manner, then states shouldn't be able to restrict carrying a firearm.
If we are going to use the 14th amendment and due process clause in such a manner, then states shouldn't be able to restrict carrying a firearm.
bbfreeburn
Active Member
So, Djarum, you're saying that an activist judge can be either liberal or conservative? If so then I have no problem with that. I just find it odd that most folks here seem to only use the term "activist" in re liberals.
And your entire argument seems, to me, to go to the heart of a larger question; is the Constitution a living document? Or, is it firmly rooted in 18 century thought? Me, I think it's a living document. The founders could not have possibly envisioned today's world and, I think, allowed for that in writing the Constitution.
And your entire argument seems, to me, to go to the heart of a larger question; is the Constitution a living document? Or, is it firmly rooted in 18 century thought? Me, I think it's a living document. The founders could not have possibly envisioned today's world and, I think, allowed for that in writing the Constitution.
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Dear bbfreeburn:
Of course, an "activist" judge can be either liberal or conservative.
Of course, an "activist" judge can be either liberal or conservative.
I do believe its a living document, in that, that is why the legislative body is for. That is what laws and amendments are for. However, part of the problem with the constitution is that there is exactness about what powers the Federal government has, and vagueness when it comes to anything else. Typically, powers not held by the Feds go to the state or the individual. The other vague areas of the document lie in the 14th amendment.
"....No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What we are talking about is substantive due process here. While in many previous cases, the Scotus has had the opinion that marriage is a fundamental right. The problem is, this isn't legislated. Shouldn't rights be legislated? If the supreme court decides what are and aren't rights, whats the point of the Bill of Rights or any other legislated rights or privilages? Thinking of it this way, why did we need several Civil Rights Acts if the Scotus could just make up those rights based on decision?. Fundamentally, case law is winning the day, not constitutional law or statutory law. The Civil Rights acts would be statutory laws, whereas amendments would be constitutional law. Even Lincoln stated: ""irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers"
States could just stop issuing marriage licenses. It would be illegal for the federal government to force states to issue marriage licenses unless the federal government pays for it, which would require federally legislative action. And this is how the constitution should change, through amendments. I think one of the reasons why the Scotus becomes an activist branch of the government is simply due to the requirements to create such amendments. But that is what amendments are for.