Uploaded by BreitbartNews on Feb 3, 2012
US Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Tells Egyptians Don’t Look to The Old US Constitution When You Write Yours
American Freedom
Uploaded by BreitbartNews on Feb 3, 2012
US Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Tells Egyptians Don’t Look to The Old US Constitution When You Write Yours
Ms. Ginsburg obviously thinks that those other documents are much better suited to the organization of a country than our own Constitution. You know, the one she swore to “…uphold and defend…”
Traitorous b!+¢h!
If she is so wise as to the constructing of a superior constitution than the failing one she is charged to uphold then I’m willing to trade her to Egypt for 2 warm falafels and a chilled karkady mmmm. She can even take the robe as a parting gift.
P.S. A “no return” policy will be strictly ENFORCED!
Amen and Amen, Judge Nopalitano is also in agreement on the subject of “tweaking the Constitution” and trying to make it to fit the idea’s of today’s misguided ideas of change. Yes I was slumming this morning over coffee I saw it on Faux news, and his idea pretty much is the same, and says also Ginsburg will probably get out before O bozo does so as to keep the liberal supreme court dream alive.
Unless she is ultimately confident that he will be reelected she would have to step down soon as the process can be drug out to the election.
“…we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.”
If I had been drinking, I would have sprayed my monitor! The very idea that The Constitution is still in force is ludicrous, especially coming from her. She is one of the most vocal proponents of “the living constitution” ever seated on the Supreme Court, and it is no secret that she is among those who have completely destroyed any limits that The Constitution might have once had upon the power of the national government.
Reblogged this on United to Save America and commented:
Is this really the type of person we want on the Supreme Court? If you don’t believe in the constitution, you cannot properly interpret it.
Mr. Forsman,
At no time did the justice suggest she didn’t ‘believe’ the in the Constitution. In fact, might I suggest that the constitution – or any such document empowering both people and the government, requires less ‘belief’ and more careful consideration – frequent revision – and, sober after thought. Let us not forget that while the US constitution was a milestone in democratic achievement in the late 1700s, to this date it enshrines that blacks are 3/5ths of a person and a ethically questionable right to bear arms amendment that serves almost no real purpose against the original reasoning that brought it into being in the first place. The difficulty as the justice points out is not in having a constitution, but keeping it up to date, viable, and representative of the needs of all the citizenry.
Kind regards,
“requires….frequent revision” Foolish assertion hoping for no retort which follows:
“….the US constitution was a milestone in democratic…” Wrong. Tough the term “democracy” can be found in writings of the day many of our founders specifically warned us against “democracy” as they saw its inherent flaw thus creating a representative republic instead. Benjamin Franklin being one of the
many.
“…it enshrines that blacks are 3/5ths of a person.” Wrong. The 3/5th rules, as I’m sure you actually know but desire to twist, was speaking to representation in Congress and was SPECIFICALLY designed to weaken slave states to bring an end to slavery itself. Now the dishonest left twists the matter and fools follow suit. Based on your articulation I’m giving you the credit for at least being dishonest.
“…ethically questionable right to bear arms amendment.” Wrong, multiple quotes make it clear that all other rights are defended by the right to bear arms. Not the least of which is from the man whom we so trusted we named our Capital after him. “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington (trust me that I can provide many many MANY more such quotes.)
“The difficulty as the justice points out is not in having a constitution, but keeping it up to date, viable, and representative of the needs of all the citizenry.” Usual canard of the left. Truth does not change. The Constitution was a foundation built on the truths of human nature and God given rights, not simply current events as the left wants the foolish to believe.
Sir with all due respect The constitution has served us well and to be quite frank it pisses me off when anyone wants to bring it up to date, are you kidding me this has been he longest running system and the fairest system in the world and I sir am offended by any “change ” made to it past or present , Our founding fathers had more common sense and book smarts than any of the wet behind the ear wanna be’s that are trying to screw it up DAILY if they really want to be constructive get away from it with any idea of making it some living document.
By the way eloquently spoken Talons point, I couldn’t have said it that nice… come to think of it I didn’t.
Gentlemen,
No law is inviolate. Review does not mean change at any price, and critical review does not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nor is sober afterthought a view of the ‘left’. Those who would set the clock at a stand still, or worse, set it back are often more a danger than those would might blindly push it forward in hopes of some promised and dreamt of utopia.
Change is inevitable. As well, just because a particular approach to representative democracy worked in a part of North America, does not mean such an approach is applicable elsewhere.
As well, such commentary shouldn’t ‘piss off’ anyone. If the law has merit and value it should stand criticism upon its own weight, not through ‘anger’ or ‘belief’. The US has changed it’s laws in the past and will do so again. Laws cast in stone without review are tyranny. I suspect the founding fathers would agree…
Kind regards,
That is the trouble with society today they want tweek this or tweek that, they try it with the Bible they’re going to keep tweeking until the original intent is lost in the process, second the democracy thing is a misguided description of what we have always had in this Nation we are now and have always been a Republic so all the democracy rhetoric really doesn’t get it done, if its a democracy they seek go where it is practiced and leave the Republic alone.
“Nor is sober afterthought a view of the ‘left’. ” Well we can agree there.
Change is indeed inevitable but principles do not change. Again. The Constitution in not a “living” document to be changed at the whims of changing culture let alone unelected judges.
We are not a representative democracy by design. Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner thus the principle that certain rights are given by God, unalienable, and government is charged to protect those rights, not dispense them.
Not sure about anyone else but I’m not pissed, just resolute in what I know.
“Laws cast in stone without review are tyranny. I suspect the founding fathers would agree…” Well that depends on what kinds of laws. There are Constitutional laws designed to protect liberty and other laws designed to balance that liberty with social responsibility to not encroach on another’s liberty.
So, if you are talking about the laws that define said limitations to protect the liberty of other (ie your fist must end before where my nose begins) you are most correct, if you are talking about the enduring Constitutional laws to protect liberty itself our founders would have nothing to do with your views.
“Constitution in not a “living” document to be changed at the whims of changing culture let alone unelected judges.”
At a whim no. I quite agree. But, women once did not have the vote. Co-mingling of the races was once illegal. Laws do change and the constitution is but a set of laws – albiet good ones – that must not only rightly and fairly circumscribe the character of the nation, but cannot in that embrace create a noose by which the nation is strangled. Principles have a long life – longer than laws or their practices.
As well, thanks for your comment and tone, but I would also offer that we should not be so ‘resolute’ as to be blinded to supporting our principles through other means than those defined in an age when the machinations of the modern world were not even imagined. While there may be a few ‘absolute’ truths, there are many ways of achieving them.
Kind regards,
“…and the constitution is but a set of laws….that must not only rightly and fairly circumscribe the character of the nation, but cannot in that embrace create a noose by which the nation is strangled…” I’m afraid you continue to be in error. The constitution is the affirmation of unmovable principles founded on God given unchangeable rights. Yes it did take some time for some of those rights to be asserted but the right was never the less present in its original wording. The premise that foundations are subject to change is in itself an argument against the foundation.
My resolution does not blind me. It is the born of the same biblical truths shared by the majority of the founders and provides the very light necessary to see see.
Provide please writings from Ginsberg that are superior in intellect for the securing of your liberties than our founders? Waiting respectfully, and patiently.
“The constitution is the affirmation of unmovable principles founded on God given unchangeable rights.”
While the principles may be unmovable – their application certainly is not – nor is their universality. The US in the last decade has demonstrated a willingness to suspend rights based upon necessity. While ‘God given’ rights may well be immovable – people are happy to change and interpret the resulting laws as they see fit based upon necessity. My point remains, such rigidity is a ‘man made’ interpretation – and has nothing whatever to do with the founding principles – immovable or not.
Kind regards
Sigh