|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Judges should interpret the Constitution ... |
| ... taking into account modern-day meaning and issues. |
|
50% |
[ 5 ] |
| ... with a focus on what they believe to be the original intent. |
|
50% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 10 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:59 am Post subject: Public split on how to interpret the Constitution |
 |
|
Given we were just discussing the Constitution to some extent in another thread, I thought this might interest some people here:
Public split on how to interpret the Constitution.
| Quote: |
This is kind of a scary reflection of what decades of conservative pounding on so-called "activist judges" does to public opinion.
| Quote: |
| Americans are divided on whether the Supreme Court should base its rulings on its understanding of what the Constitution means in current times or whether those rulings should be strictly based on the Constitution as written, as had been argued by tea party movement adherents and many conservatives. Fully half (50%) said the Constitution should be interpreted to take into account modern times while 45% say the justices should base their understanding on what the Constitution meant as written. |
The survey is a couple of months old, but still instructive. Delving more deeply into Pew Research Center's findings, it would seem that more conservatives hold tea party-like views on the constitution than actually claim to belong to the tea party.
| Quote: |
In the Pew Research Center's political typology survey, released May 4, 70% of Republicans said the Supreme Court should base its rulings on its understanding of the Constitution as originally written; 65% of Democrats said the Court should base its rulings on what the Constitution means today.
The differences are even starker when viewed through the political typology, which sorts people based on their values, political beliefs and partisan affiliation.
Constitutional originalism draws overwhelming support from Staunch Conservatives, who are mostly older white males and include the largest percentage of Tea Party supporters (72%) of any group. Fully 88% of Staunch Conservatives say the Supreme Court should base its understanding of the Constitution on how it was originally written. Among other Republican and GOP-leaning groups�Main Street Republicans, Libertarians and Disaffecteds�smaller majorities favor an originalist approach.
Solid Liberals�who are mostly highly politically engaged, pro-government seculars�reject constitutional originalism by nearly the same margin as Staunch Conservatives support it: 81% say the Court should base its rulings on its understanding of what the Constitution means in current times, while just 15% say justices should base their rulings on an understanding of what the Constitution means as it was originally written. |
It's the full-on 70 percent of Republicans, and fully 45 percent of Americans, who are basically in the Scalia camp (probably without realizing what exactly that means) that's really disturbing. It's even more disturbing when you look at the very thin thread by which a rational Supreme Court now hangs. |
Charts with the percentage breakdowns from the poll available at the link. I've included a poll in this thread for our own little CE Forum variant, though I think I can guess how it will turn out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Voted for original intent. This is not to say I think it is some holy document, just that I am so irritated by the current state of government that I would give the Raelians a second look should they show up at the poll box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This provision is made in a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. (John Marshall) |
I'm with John Marshall.
As I see it, the Founders rejected a weak national government and set out a blueprint with some limits or boundaries, a kind of rule book for how the game was to be played. Beyond that, they said, "Go!"
As far as I can see, everyone tries to use federal power to achieve their goals and screams States' Rights when that is useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Short-answer: we should look to the modern understanding and seek to conform our Constitution to the time within which it operates. But, many of the original understandings of the document are still relevant, because time does very little to change the nature of men. Technology may present new challenges, but we can usually address them within expansions of the perennial frameworks. Whenever we stray from an original intent, we should have a clear reason and a tangible gain for doing so. And we should only be liberal in construction to uphold the rights of individuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
