According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, writing on Slate.com, it’s time for the Supreme Court – and, indeed, law students everywhere – to stop giving so much deference to that old, musty document known as the U.S. Constitution.
“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc. of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”
Posner concluded: “In short, let’s not let the dead bury the living.”
Posner, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, is surely entering the initial stages of some form of regrettable dementia.
If anything, our current Supreme Court justices have strayed too far from their constitutional grounding. Increasingly, they put on those black robes and suddenly consider themselves the wisest men and women in the land, imbued with the kind of grand ideas and exceptional genius that renders the Constitution (and even legal precedent) matters of triviality. If these things can be used to support their learned opinion, great. If not, well, that’s fine too. No such banalities can be used to question a mighty Justice! Begone, peasant.
Posner is right, of course, that there are aspects of 21st century American life that are too far removed from the Revolution-era to make constitutional application an easy job. But then, that’s why we have the Supreme Court. If you could find every answer in the written text of that hallowed document, we would hardly need all of this “interpretation.”
But without a close study of the Constitution, its framers, and its intent, we are a ship lost at sea, simply making the rules up as we go along. At some point, Posner (and many other liberals) apparently forgot that the Constitution was – and is – one of the greatest legal foundations for government in the history of the world. Upon those brilliant insights, we built a country that permanently changed this thing we call life.
The grand importance of the Constitution, though, is not in its specificity or its one-to-one relevance in 2016. It’s the theme that is written between every calligraphic line: Whenever possible, the power of the federal government over the citizenry should be severely limited. This should be the guiding light of every Supreme Court Justice, every senator, every congressman, and every president.
“I think the Supreme Court is at a nadir,” wrote Posner at another point in his essay. “The justices are far too uniform in background, and I don’t think there are any real stars among them.”
Well, then, Judge Posner, this would be a pretty bad time for them to start ignoring the Constitution, wouldn’t it?
He is exactly why the founders recognized and placed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
He is right. The document became more or less irrelevant decades ago. We don't follow it. So why bother studying it?
He is right. The document became more or less irrelevant decades ago. We don't follow it. So why bother studying it?
No he's wrong and is representative of what is wrong in this country as are those that think like him. Include yourself if you are so inclined. We need the constitution now as much or more than we ever did. Now is not the time to diminish it nor has there ever been such a time.
And replace it with "what"?
Culture and technology may change, but human nature remains unchanged and the acquisition of power (and use of same)by corrupt individuals and governments will continue unabated.
But the document and the foresight of the founders is all that prevents it, and stands above the fray.
To suggest that we should trust any portion of todays crop of fools with the ability to tamper with it, is ridiculous.
The judge is an idiot.
Posner is essentially the touchstone on tort law in the US.
However, his views on the Constitution are ludicrous, and completely unsuitable for any sitting judge at any level. He should be removed, or have the honor and integrity to step down.
Well BobinH theres a crop of Fools who think a Tax dodging, Mysoginist Bigot shoud lead this country ....
The Documents been so comprimised now that its relevance sure can be question.
The Judge makes alot of sense
The Judge makes alot of sense
He makes no more sense than you do. Do us a favor and go away, and take that Judge with you. miles
He is right. The document became more or less irrelevant decades ago. We don't follow it. So why bother studying it?
No he's wrong and is representative of what is wrong in this country as are those that think like him. Include yourself if you are so inclined. We need the constitution now as much or more than we ever did. Now is not the time to diminish it nor has there ever been such a time.
It's long past diminished.
He is right. The document became more or less irrelevant decades ago. We don't follow it. So why bother studying it?
No he's wrong and is representative of what is wrong in this country as are those that think like him. Include yourself if you are so inclined. We need the constitution now as much or more than we ever did. Now is not the time to diminish it nor has there ever been such a time.
It's long past diminished.
I am an American and in my eyes it is not nor have I done anything to diminish it. It is my birthright. Evidently you think differently and do not hold it in high esteem. So be it.
Sounds like he considers his opinions above the Constitution, and probably above those "God given rights" also.
They need a lesson in what the 2nd Amendment is for.
U.S. Constitution 101.
It's past due for these dickwads that think they are above the freedom our nation was founded on.
He is right. The document became more or less irrelevant decades ago. We don't follow it. So why bother studying it?
No he's wrong and is representative of what is wrong in this country as are those that think like him. Include yourself if you are so inclined. We need the constitution now as much or more than we ever did. Now is not the time to diminish it nor has there ever been such a time.
It's long past diminished.
I am an American and in my eyes it is not nor have I done anything to diminish it. It is my birthright. Evidently you think differently and do not hold it in high esteem. So be it.
And apparently you are incapable of distinguishing between your wants, desires, and wishes upon a star from reality. It matters not how you or I feel about it. The fact is it is an irrelevant document that has absolutely failed to limit the power of size of government and it is scarcely followed by anyone.
He is right. The document became more or less irrelevant decades ago. We don't follow it. So why bother studying it?
No he's wrong and is representative of what is wrong in this country as are those that think like him. Include yourself if you are so inclined. We need the constitution now as much or more than we ever did. Now is not the time to diminish it nor has there ever been such a time.
It's long past diminished.
You guys better get a grip.....it's actually the last hope you have.
You let vampires like that judge start playing with that document and the first thing to go will be the 2nd...then the 1st and it's a downhill slide from there.
Not that any of the intelligentsia of today would have the foggiest phuggin clue of how to reform it and I wouldn't trust anybody from todays generation with the job.
They've been playing with it for a long damned time. The Supreme Court once said that they can prohibit you from having a backyard garden because the corn you wouldn't buy because you had that garden was part of the stream of interstate commerce. If they can justify that, they can do anything.
He is right. The document became more or less irrelevant decades ago. We don't follow it. So why bother studying it?
No he's wrong and is representative of what is wrong in this country as are those that think like him. Include yourself if you are so inclined. We need the constitution now as much or more than we ever did. Now is not the time to diminish it nor has there ever been such a time.
It's long past diminished.
I am an American and in my eyes it is not nor have I done anything to diminish it. It is my birthright. Evidently you think differently and do not hold it in high esteem. So be it.
And apparently you are incapable of distinguishing between your wants, desires, and wishes upon a star from reality. It matters not how you or I feel about it. The fact is it is an irrelevant document that has absolutely failed to limit the power of size of government and it is scarcely followed by anyone.
The point I am making is that you exhibit the exact kind of thinking that has allowed what you describe. I am under no illusions. Perhaps you are. I find no fault in being a fundamentalist re the constitution. I make no concessions to you. This judge is flat out wrong and no part of his logic has any merit at all. Not in my house. Don't know about yours.
He put his hand on a Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If he now has a change of heart, like it appears, he should be removed from office via impeachment.
They've been playing with it for a long damned time. The Supreme Court once said that they can prohibit you from having a backyard garden because the corn you wouldn't buy because you had that garden was part of the stream of interstate commerce. If they can justify that, they can do anything.
The document is open to interpretation by the Courts. That's why they are there.
Just because things don't always go as you like, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think what the judge is saying, is a product of modern society and what the education system is turning out....
stating a document created 200 plus years ago, could not foresee what the future would hold and bring is easily to make sense.... its a logical statement, and easy to take at face value..... to me that is the education system indoctrination of not questioning what might make logical sense for the convenience of today's society....welcome to communist indoctrination 101....
you receive a logical statement and you don't think about it because it makes sense to you, as you've been indoctrinated to believe.
then you get out of that mode and actually think about it, ask yourself one simple question.... does modern technology over ride one's need for individual rights and freedoms?
Liberals seem to think so...as they are indoctrinated to believe that sort of crap.... they look to the government to take care of all of their individual needs, regardless of how minute they may be....
another perfect example of liberalism being a mental disease..
and as an addendum,
anyone listening to that troll, St Evil and giving his posts credence is just as stupid....
he's a plant on this web site, plain pure and simple...
no one can be that idiotic....
I'd question if he is really even an Australian.. probably either a governmental plant or a friggin Muslim from somewhere from a third world schitthole....
TIME TO STUDY HARDER AND FIGHT FOR IT
And replace it with "what"?
Culture and technology may change, but human nature remains unchanged and the acquisition of power (and use of same)by corrupt individuals and governments will continue unabated.
But the document and the foresight of the founders is all that prevents it, and stands above the fray.
To suggest that we should trust any portion of todays crop of fools with the ability to tamper with it, is ridiculous.
The judge is an idiot.
This.
The Constitution is backed by thousands of years of experience with human nature before it, the fallibility of men and a basic understanding of idiots just like this "judge".
Truly a worthless person.
The document is as much about reigning in the indiscretions of human behavior as it is about placing limitations on the power of the government.
Other than space and time, there is no substantive difference between the despots of the 17th and 18th centuries, and the tyranny of todays socialist/communist systems; nor Communist China. They are all the same.
The founders knew it and that's part of the genius of the document.
It s timeless and the mere mortals who poke at it are at best temporary and of no significance.
Basically he's stating he's got no time for the law.
Good to know; I hope he's prepared himself for when people like him has created the point that the rest of us dont have time for it, either. Being so modern of a thought and all.....
The fact is it is an irrelevant document that has absolutely failed to limit the power of size of government and it is scarcely followed by anyone.
...so because no one follows the speed limit we should ignore the signs.
[quote=BobinNH
The document is open to interpretation by the Courts. That's why they are there.
Just because things don't always go as you like, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. [/quote]
Fine, as long as interpretation is based on the ratification conventions discussions, federalist papers and other documents of the time relevant to the Constitution. Not OK if it is some judges PC legislation from the bench.
The document was deliberately ambiguous on many things so future generations would have to think through how it applied to situations that couldn't be foreseen at the time of it's writing.
If it were more specific, it truly would be dated.
As it is, it's alive!
The fact is it is an irrelevant document that has absolutely failed to limit the power of size of government and it is scarcely followed by anyone.
...so because no one follows the speed limit we should ignore the signs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've read enough of JoeBobs posts to know that he DOES believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights -he's just bummed out that we've let things go the direction they have for so long.
I'd love to see 100% adherence to the Constitution & Bill of Rights anyone trying to go around it or dispute it gets a first class public hanging after being beaten multiple times .
Well BobinH theres a crop of Fools who think a Tax dodging, Mysoginist Bigot shoud lead this country ....
The Documents been so comprimised now that its relevance sure can be question.
The Judge makes alot of sense
There are a few progressive fascist around who support Hillary the Felon in Waiting.
The Constitution is the Law of the land and will always be what makes this country great and what separates us from all the other countries that oppresses their people .
The fact is it is an irrelevant document that has absolutely failed to limit the power of size of government and it is scarcely followed by anyone.
...so because no one follows the speed limit we should ignore the signs.
You miss the point. If no one follows the speed limit the signs ARE ALREADY being ignored.
Reading this thread it's sad and f'ed up that there is more knowledge and wisdom here than in all three branches of government. Most people today have no idea and couldn't care less about what made this country great or the ideas that it was based on.
Posner is essentially the touchstone on tort law in the US.
However, his views on the Constitution are ludicrous, and completely unsuitable for any sitting judge at any level. He should be removed, or have the honor and integrity to step down.
Impeached for treason perhaps.
We all took the oath to that document when we served. They got to swear to it too as judges.
This judge doesn't realize its the Constitution that provides for his job; and the freedom of speech to speak against It.
And replace it with "what"?
Culture and technology may change, but human nature remains unchanged and the acquisition of power (and use of same)by corrupt individuals and governments will continue unabated.
But the document and the foresight of the founders is all that prevents it, and stands above the fray.
To suggest that we should trust any portion of todays crop of fools with the ability to tamper with it, is ridiculous.
The judge is an idiot.
+1000
Best discussion of this issue is
HERE July 1, 2016
Federal judge goes all in against rule of law, tosses stare decisis
By Sierra Rayne
A couple days ago, I discussed how Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has advocated that no judge should spend even a few seconds "studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation."
Such a public statement appears to be in contravention of 28 U.S. Code §453, the oath of judges, which requires all judges to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent ... under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
This judges is a liar and a fraud, that is what he is saying. He took an oath to carry out his duties according to the constitution and now he is saying opening ly that he lied during his oath and committed fraud inorder to be a judge.
He should imediatley be removed from office and prosecuted!
He is right. The document became more or less irrelevant decades ago. We don't follow it. So why bother studying it?
No he's wrong and is representative of what is wrong in this country as are those that think like him. Include yourself if you are so inclined. We need the constitution now as much or more than we ever did. Now is not the time to diminish it nor has there ever been such a time.
THAT...
This judges is a liar and a fraud, that is what he is saying. He took an oath to carry out his duties according to the constitution and now he is saying opening ly that he lied during his oath and committed fraud inorder to be a judge.
He should imediatley be removed from office and prosecuted!
That too.
And ESPECIALLY that!!
he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it
According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, writing on Slate.com, it’s time for the Supreme Court – and, indeed, law students everywhere – to stop giving so much deference to that old, musty document known as the U.S. Constitution.
“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc. of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”
Posner concluded: “In short, let’s not let the dead bury the living.”
Posner, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, is surely entering the initial stages of some form of regrettable dementia.
If anything, our current Supreme Court justices have strayed too far from their constitutional grounding. Increasingly, they put on those black robes and suddenly consider themselves the wisest men and women in the land, imbued with the kind of grand ideas and exceptional genius that renders the Constitution (and even legal precedent) matters of triviality. If these things can be used to support their learned opinion, great. If not, well, that’s fine too. No such banalities can be used to question a mighty Justice! Begone, peasant.
Posner is right, of course, that there are aspects of 21st century American life that are too far removed from the Revolution-era to make constitutional application an easy job. But then, that’s why we have the Supreme Court. If you could find every answer in the written text of that hallowed document, we would hardly need all of this “interpretation.”
But without a close study of the Constitution, its framers, and its intent, we are a ship lost at sea, simply making the rules up as we go along. At some point, Posner (and many other liberals) apparently forgot that the Constitution was – and is – one of the greatest legal foundations for government in the history of the world. Upon those brilliant insights, we built a country that permanently changed this thing we call life.
The grand importance of the Constitution, though, is not in its specificity or its one-to-one relevance in 2016. It’s the theme that is written between every calligraphic line: Whenever possible, the power of the federal government over the citizenry should be severely limited. This should be the guiding light of every Supreme Court Justice, every senator, every congressman, and every president.
“I think the Supreme Court is at a nadir,” wrote Posner at another point in his essay. “The justices are far too uniform in background, and I don’t think there are any real stars among them.”
Well, then, Judge Posner, this would be a pretty bad time for them to start ignoring the Constitution, wouldn’t it?
He has effectively barred himself from any and all taxpayer funded positions...in particular any overseeing any judgement upon anything pertaining to or of the Constitution.
They've been playing with it for a long damned time. The Supreme Court once said that they can prohibit you from having a backyard garden because the corn you wouldn't buy because you had that garden was part of the stream of interstate commerce. If they can justify that, they can do anything.
The document is open to interpretation by the Courts. That's why they are there.
Just because things don't always go as you like, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It seems like the only time it's " interpreted" is when someone, usually the government, wants to do something to somebody, usually " We The People", that the Constitution already expressly prohibits them from doing, in plain simple English that even lawyers, judges, and politicians ought to be able to understand.
If there's no constitution, what means "rule of law"?
They've been playing with it for a long damned time. The Supreme Court once said that they can prohibit you from having a backyard garden because the corn you wouldn't buy because you had that garden was part of the stream of interstate commerce. If they can justify that, they can do anything.
The document is open to interpretation by the Courts. That's why they are there.
Just because things don't always go as you like, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It seems like the only time it's " interpreted" is when someone, usually the government, wants to do something to somebody, usually " We The People", that the Constitution already expressly prohibits them from doing, in plain simple English that even lawyers, judges, and politicians ought to be able to understand.
Well EXACTLY!!
WTF do you think it's there!? That is precisely what it's for....
The point is people will over reach and stretch the limits of authority in pursuit of power or to advance an agenda.
Why would ANYONE be surprised when government tries to do something to you?
You think they are nice guys or something? Like they should know what they should and should not do?
According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, writing on Slate.com, it’s time for the Supreme Court – and, indeed, law students everywhere – to stop giving so much deference to that old, musty document known as the U.S. Constitution.
“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc. of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”
The "eighteenth-century guys" who wrote the constitution knew that culture and technology would change, which is why they wrote it mainly about principles instead of specifics and why they provided a means to amend it.
The argument that the constitution doesn't apply to the modern world because of technology changes has been specifically rebuked by SCOTUS:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DC v Heller, 2008
[emphasis added]
It's amazing that a Federal judge could be hypocritical enough that to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then come out with a statement that it's irrelevant.
And replace it with "what"?
Culture and technology may change, but human nature remains unchanged and the acquisition of power (and use of same)by corrupt individuals and governments will continue unabated.
But the document and the foresight of the founders is all that prevents it, and stands above the fray.
To suggest that we should trust any portion of todays crop of fools with the ability to tamper with it, is ridiculous.
The judge is an idiot.
Beer is on me.
It's views like this being common among the judiciary that have gotten us to the sorry state we're in as a nation. This attitude, even if not stated openly (even if just perceptible by their decisions) should be cause for immediate impeachment, followed by long prison terms.