-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Sen. Herb Kohl just asked Elena Kagan whether she believed that the Supreme Court should make decisions based on the original intent of the framers, or see it as a living document. She responded that she doesn’t see it as an “either or” question. In some cases, she said, the Constitution is clear — such as the fact that Senators must be at least 30 years old, but other parts lend themselves to multiple interpretations. In the Heller gun case, she said that all nine justices looked at the original meaning of the Constitution, even though they came to different conclusions about original intent. When it comes to free speech, she said that the Court has interpreted the Constitition more broadly.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/29/kagan-says-originalism-vs-livi
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- The Continuing Crisis
- Screwtape Protests
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican| 6.29.10 @ 11:40AM
She just disqualified herself...period!
Oldefarte| 6.29.10 @ 12:35PM
I just wish one of these PC morons would ask her how she personally felt about homosexuals right to marry and to serve openly in the military; and furthermore, I wish that she would honestly answer same [which of course she won't since she's still in the closet, and wants to stealth herself upon the SCOTUS so that she can voter affirmatively for her friends/supporters at HRC]!!!!
Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 2:13PM
Kagan is a Deconstructionist Agendist.
This Senate Confirmation Hearing is Kabuki Theater.
Nate| 6.29.10 @ 4:42PM
This shouldn't be such a problem.
On some things it was CLEARLY the INTENT of the Founders to let future generations decide how to APPLY the Constitution.
The Founders would have been baffled by the concept of "originalism" or any of the other phony fundamentalist "theories" of constitutional interpretation propounded on the right.
Nick| 6.29.10 @ 5:08PM
Nate,
You wouldn't know the Constitution if it smacked you upside the head. Here is my response to your post from yesterday:
Instead of regurgitating liberal talking-points about the U.S. Constitution and the Second Article of Amendment, why don't you try reading the actual words of the Constitution and comprehending them.
The Second Article of Amendment clearly states "[...] the right of the [PEOPLE] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The preamble portion about the "well regulated militia" lists no right or power granted to, or retained by, the several States.
This is ignorant, liberal soothsaying trying to wrench a meaning that is not there. Like finding "penumbras" and "emanations." Do you know the difference between the regular militia and the select militia, Nate?
"Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms." - Nate
All this would do is stop the FEDERAL government from legislating on keeping and bearing arms. The several States would still be able to infringe on the right. That is why the Framers used the words "the right of the [PEOPLE]." This meant no governing entity (federal, state, county, municipal) could stop the PEOPLE from owning and carrying firearms.
This stupid "well regulated militia" argument, that the states can regulate gun ownership, is a rather new one, in the past 40 years of gun control sophistry.
If you liberals would actually bother to read the U.S. Constitution, or even a book or two on the subject, you would find that Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia [...]."
The only power the several States had, regarding the militia, was to appoint officers and train the militia according to the standards set by Congress.
Yet, you constitutionally illiterate liberals claim the words "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," really mean that the States can regulate the militia, and therefore gun ownership. Even though, after the Second Article of Amendment was adopted, the Congress kept on "regulating" the militia.
Do I need a secret decoder ring from a box of Cracker Jacks to find this State power, Nate?
Brian B| 6.29.10 @ 7:23PM
I guess ALL CAPS make it so?
I will agree with Kagan on one point; the Founders certainly did believe in a living Constitution. That's why they created the amendment process so that THE PEOPLE (see I can be right too, Nate) through their elected reps could animate it, rather than the robed ones.
Kagan is spouting utter BS when she asserts all nine justices looked at original intent and came up with different interpretations of the 2nd amendment. All nine looked at original intent and four of them didn't like what they saw so they trried to substitute their own intent. That's the sure fire route to a dead Constitution, not a living one.