Justice Ginsburg on U.S. Constitution

[CountryBoy1981]

Justice Ginsburg stated that she “would not look to the United States Constitution” as a blueprint for crafting the nation’s new constitution. She also stated, "Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning from others."


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Visits Egypt, Tunisia to Praise Arab Spring | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[buckstopshere]

Another lib going to the Middle east talking about America. why doesn't she just stay there and help them draft whatever government ruling constitution for Egypt they want.

 

[DRob]

Stolen concept

I can't take credit for this but...............If a Middle Eastern country is planning to craft a new constitution, why don't we just give them ours since we aren't using it any more!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Given the rest of what she has to say in that same sentence, I would agree with her. Her reasoning was that the US Constitution, as written, treats anyone who is not both White and male pretty abysmally.

Now.... That doesn't say that one could not look to our Constitution as amended as a guide, and on that point, I would say that Justice Ginsburg is an embarrassment to not only her profession but to her country.

And I agree. I would not be upset if she simply remained there, especially since her trip was paid for on taxpayer dollars.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Even our president has been quoted that our constitution isn't good enough...Just a bunch of negative liberities...tells the government what it can't do to you instead of what it should do for you.

Since World War II several other models have emerged that offer more specific and contemporary guarantees of rights and liberties, she said, pointing to South Africa’s constitution, which she called a “really great piece of work” for its embrace of basic human rights and guarantee of an independent judiciary.

An independent judiciary? I'm sure that's just what a liberal minded JUSTICE would love to see. I'd love for her to beat a path over there, maybe she could help mold them into the society she and her ilk dream for us.

 

[9mmfan]

She's just a hack. Yes, I Supreme Court Justice, but still just a hack.

 

[hornadylnl]

Justice Ginsburg stated that she “would not look to the United States Constitution” as a blueprint for crafting the nation’s new constitution. She also stated, "Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning from others."


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Visits Egypt, Tunisia to Praise Arab Spring | Video | TheBlaze.com

Um, isn't that exactly what our founders did?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

From a liberal's point of view, what's not to like?

I've only skimmed this paper, but from what I've read, it's a Christmas...um, I mean a winter celebration list of progressive, liberal blather.

Why the South African Constitution is BETTER than the United States's

Cass Sunstein said that the South African Constitution is "the most admirable constitution in the history of the world." It contains a lengthy list of socio-economic rights,

Well, if it's good enough for Cass, and presumably by extension, BHO, shouldn't be good enough for anybody?

Besides the Limitations Clause, the South African Bill of Rights has several other interesting provisions, such as interpretive instructions. One provision provides that courts should "promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom." Courts are also supposed to construe legislation and the common law to promote the spirit of the Bill of Rights. Moreover, courts must consider international law in rendering decisions, and may also consider foreign law.

Any constitution that promotes social justice, reparations, consideration of foreign and international laws, "open society"--well, I can see why it's a favorite of the honorable justice Ginsberg. It would appear that this thing is loaded with the code words to make any good liberal drool.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Um, isn't that exactly what our founders did?

Kinda, but not exactly. The FF's considered many sources to conceive of a government by which man could rule himself, not justify a government's care or providing for its citizens.

 

[buckstopshere]

I think what people are really forgetting about the FF message is that they were instituting a government inside each individual. A government of self accountable, work ethic, and freedom of thought, religion, etc...that would render a governing OF the people to be irrelevant as the people already effectively govern themselves.

The way gets lost when you rely on others for your means to live, survive, and protection. When you rely on those "others", they own you.

Ginsburg can put that in her pipe and smoke it!

 

[hornadylnl]

I understand what Ginsburg means by her comments. But the hysteria against looking elsewhere for guidance in drafting a new constitution is comical in the fact that it's exactly what our founders did. There are a lot of great things in our constitution but body can deny the fact that it's been an abysmal failure in preventing our current state of affairs.

 

[buckstopshere]

I understand what Ginsburg means by her comments. But the hysteria against looking elsewhere for guidance in drafting a new constitution is comical in the fact that it's exactly what our founders did. There are a lot of great things in our constitution but body can deny the fact that it's been an abysmal failure in preventing our current state of affairs.

I think the failure is ours, not the constitutions. As a society, we have just become a bunch of self righteous, spoiled, little p****s that don't want to work and want someone to take care of us and tell us how special we are.

The 99% and the 1% are getting more attention than the 47% who are on some type of government assistance.

That's our fault, not the constitutions IMO.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I understand what Ginsburg means by her comments. But the hysteria against looking elsewhere for guidance in drafting a new constitution is comical in the fact that it's exactly what our founders did. There are a lot of great things in our constitution but body can deny the fact that it's been an abysmal failure in preventing our current state of affairs.

You're right. It does not prevent misguided, dishonest, or downright evil men and women from contorting its meaning(s) nor does it have a means of self preservation except for the diligence of the governed.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Given the rest of what she has to say in that same sentence, I would agree with her. Her reasoning was that the US Constitution, as written, treats anyone who is not both White and male pretty abysmally.

Now.... That doesn't say that one could not look to our Constitution as amended as a guide, and on that point, I would say that Justice Ginsburg is an embarrassment to not only her profession but to her country.

And I agree. I would not be upset if she simply remained there, especially since her trip was paid for on taxpayer dollars.

Blessings,
Bill

The real meaning behind her wording is that our Constitution is a negative bill of rights in that it does not tell what our government must do. She does not like the Constitution because she believes it restricts the federal government too much.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

I understand what Ginsburg means by her comments. But the hysteria against looking elsewhere for guidance in drafting a new constitution is comical in the fact that it's exactly what our founders did. There are a lot of great things in our constitution but body can deny the fact that it's been an abysmal failure in preventing our current state of affairs.

I understand what you are stating, but the founding fathers did not foresee the living document argument. It would have been great if they would have added a comment section to certain amendments, but it is a near perfect document.

 

[rphutchi]

Given the rest of what she has to say in that same sentence, I would agree with her. Her reasoning was that the US Constitution, as written, treats anyone who is not both White and male pretty abysmally.

Now.... That doesn't say that one could not look to our Constitution as amended as a guide, and on that point, I would say that Justice Ginsburg is an embarrassment to not only her profession but to her country.

And I agree. I would not be upset if she simply remained there, especially since her trip was paid for on taxpayer dollars.

Blessings,
Bill

I think I must have missed something in translation. I don't recall anything in the Constitution granting special priveledge to whites and males. It is precisely the absence of such language that has allowed for the recognition of the rights guaranteed to all therein.

 

[dross]

I think I must have missed something in translation. I don't recall anything in the Constitution granting special priveledge to whites and males. It is precisely the absence of such language that has allowed for the recognition of the rights guaranteed to all therein.

You make a precise, but good point. One a Supreme Court Justice should know.

If she had said our country at the time granted privelege to white males, she would have been correct. The Constitution was silent on the subject.

At the time, of course, the Constitution was about leaving the states alone, and leaving the people of the states alone. The states could make their own laws.

 

[KLB]

At the time, of course, the Constitution was about leaving the states alone, and leaving the people of the states alone. The states could make their own laws.

Now that truly was "the good ole days"!

 

[dross]

Now that truly was "the good ole days"!

Was it? They could ban guns and set up a state religion if they wanted.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Was it? They could ban guns and set up a state religion if they wanted.

I know they could and some states did set up state religions, because the constitution limits the federal government.

But did it allow them to ban guns? I'll admit I haven't read anywhere where a state did that.