"Living" documents
Is the U.S. Constitution a compact with fixed meaning, or is it "a living document" whose meanings any 5-4 Supreme Court majority can change according to whims?
And what about any other documents? Are they "living," too?
Pro-abortion U.S. Supreme Court "Injustice" Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ex-general counsel for the ACLU, aka the Anti-Christian Lawsuits Unit, addessed the Constitutional Court of South Africa on February 7, 2006, and delivered some really sinister opinions. (Click on this post's title to see her speech.) Ms. Ginsburg:
...ripped "the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."
...said U.S. courts need to "read the [U.S.] Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings."
...argued that U.S. courts should impose "dynamic versus static, frozen-in-time constitutional interpretation" on the American people.
Ms. Ginsburg bragged that the U.S. Supreme Court made new interpretations and cited foreign law in "Lawrence v. Texas" (2003), the 5-4 ruling that overturned state laws against sodomy. She quoted it: "...times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
Have you ever noticed that calling the Constitution "a living document" is a lot like invoking "the spirit of Vatican II?" Finding "rights" to abort babies and to commit sodomy in the U.S. Constitution, even though they are NOT THERE, is much like "finding" all kinds of things in the documents of Vatican II that are NOT THERE.
In other words, ex-general counsels of the ACLU and current dissenters from the Faith are alike: They invent invisible permissions for the sins they want to commit and for the twisted versions of governing they want to impose on the rest of us.
Parce nobis, Domine! (Spare us, O Lord!)
And what about any other documents? Are they "living," too?
Pro-abortion U.S. Supreme Court "Injustice" Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ex-general counsel for the ACLU, aka the Anti-Christian Lawsuits Unit, addessed the Constitutional Court of South Africa on February 7, 2006, and delivered some really sinister opinions. (Click on this post's title to see her speech.) Ms. Ginsburg:
...ripped "the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."
...said U.S. courts need to "read the [U.S.] Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings."
...argued that U.S. courts should impose "dynamic versus static, frozen-in-time constitutional interpretation" on the American people.
Ms. Ginsburg bragged that the U.S. Supreme Court made new interpretations and cited foreign law in "Lawrence v. Texas" (2003), the 5-4 ruling that overturned state laws against sodomy. She quoted it: "...times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
Have you ever noticed that calling the Constitution "a living document" is a lot like invoking "the spirit of Vatican II?" Finding "rights" to abort babies and to commit sodomy in the U.S. Constitution, even though they are NOT THERE, is much like "finding" all kinds of things in the documents of Vatican II that are NOT THERE.
In other words, ex-general counsels of the ACLU and current dissenters from the Faith are alike: They invent invisible permissions for the sins they want to commit and for the twisted versions of governing they want to impose on the rest of us.
Parce nobis, Domine! (Spare us, O Lord!)
posted by Quintero at 1:16 PM
7 Comments:
"times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress...persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
I read a french author (1800) that our concept of freedom is flawed - we are not at all free to act against Gods moral laws without impunity. That the moral law is for the Church to determine and society's duty to enforce with force if necessary, otherwise those who take these unlawful liberties will not rest until they have enslaved all.
This is coming to pass in our day now.
Interestingly, the notion of the Constitution as a "living document" would logically turn on those such as Justice Ginsburg. For that means that we should not be so enamored of defending judicial precedent, as those precedents are decisions marred by the proper thinking of the times in which they were made. We are now more than 30 years away from Roe v. Wade, and the world is a different place. Let's not lock ourselves into the late-20th-century mentality when it comes to abortion.
Justice Scalia answers this notion that the constitution is a legal document, or a legal contract. If one remembers our history and civics all laws are signed into extistance binding those who it represents.
I heard a comment by the president of Human Life International who says most people are resonable when trying to come together on life issues, unless you hit an agenda.
If it is a living document then ones agenda would be the consideration to what it means.
Political commentator Walter Williams loves to ask those who promote the "living document" idea if they'd like to play poker with him and have the rules be living.
Really, this notion does remind one an awful lot of Calvin Ball, the game played by comic-strip characters Calvin and Hobbes.
Some chapters of the K of C are about comaradery (SP?) and socializing- the steak dinners and fish fry's, the annual fiesta booth. The one I am familiar with raises money and make donations. Not one of the parish clergy has ever attended any of the meetings. They really dont get much spiritual direction other then the recommended annual retreat. The members are family men but really are not zealous or have any type of missionary spirit-it's a closed social unit- new members need not apply.
Ginsberg says laws once thought necessary really oppress but in fact it is the relaxation of the laws enforcing moral order that has led to an increase of oppression.
Example, the situation unfolding back east re: the gay adoptions by Catholic Charities. Those who practised their freedom to the detriment of society now are forcefully imposing their impurity upon all-to the degree that the Catholic Charities cannot place any children in homes unless they enslave themselves under impurity. They (liberals) are having their day as the oppressors today.
Mr Fisher-
I am with you when it comes to Mahony's R.E. Congress of Dissent but, ...
Your frequent and excessively long posts are obnoxious and I fear that you will alienate the very people whose support you are seeking to enlist.
Why don't you just knock it off.
Post a Comment
<< Home