NicoMoon
10-01-2005, 08:40 AM
History in the making, and an amazing opportunity to revisit the US Constitution!!
First, I'd like to acknowledge the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts. I don't know if it's correct protocol to congratulate someone for such an appointment, or to express gratitude for their willingness to serve in such an overwhelmingly challenging position of responsibility. It seems that it is the rights and freedoms of we the people Justice Roberts is now charged to protect and preserve, so maybe it's ours to celebrate or bemoan, as the case may be.
The buzz issue around this appointment is that of the judicial activism. The debate: is the Constitution a "living document" that the founders meant to evolve and redefine itself through the powers granted to judges and/or juries through the judicial system, or is the intention that the function of change is meant to occur through the Amendment process? Or possibly a combination of the two, balanced by restrictions of ultimate power for either branch?
That's not a question to take lightly, as we are suddenly experiencing quite the upsurge in judicial decisions that overturn or seriously challenge the application and interpretation of the Constitution as we know it.
As citizens of a nation that is based on the rule of law, this is a critical matter.
Our Constitution provides and guarantees us certain inalienable rights. It is because of the strict interpretation of our Bill of Rights that all of us have grown up in a society where much is taken for granted that is not enjoyed or expected by citizens of other nations.
So the question at hand is, does the Judicial Branch on it's own, have the ability, responsibility, or right to re-interpret those rights and freedoms from the bench? And where does newly appointed Justice Rogers stand on this question himself. Therein lies the choice to celebrate or bemoan the appointment, IMHO, far and above the question of where he stands on any individual issue, because a conscientious application of the Constitution is not about serving public consensus on popular causes.
I'm not proposing any answers here, simply raising the questions, and inviting discussion and debate. I view this as an opportunity to revisit the US Constitution and do my own homework. This is, I believe what responsible citizens should and must do, before jumping into the spin machine on either side of the equation.
At the end of the day, it is not the judicial or the legislative branches that our founders meant to hold the ultimate power.
It is We the People who are gifted with that, so it is We the People who are charged with the responsibility to protect and defend our own rights and freedoms.
Information is power, and that platitude is never more true than when applied to the function of the US Constitution.
These are fascinating times we live in, and what I am celebrating today is the great gift of our Constutition, and this historic moment of being witness to one of it's most important processes, and yes, a participant as well, simply by right of my ability to speak my mind in public. Which really isn't a simple right at all. It takes a lot of defending!
First, I'd like to acknowledge the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts. I don't know if it's correct protocol to congratulate someone for such an appointment, or to express gratitude for their willingness to serve in such an overwhelmingly challenging position of responsibility. It seems that it is the rights and freedoms of we the people Justice Roberts is now charged to protect and preserve, so maybe it's ours to celebrate or bemoan, as the case may be.
The buzz issue around this appointment is that of the judicial activism. The debate: is the Constitution a "living document" that the founders meant to evolve and redefine itself through the powers granted to judges and/or juries through the judicial system, or is the intention that the function of change is meant to occur through the Amendment process? Or possibly a combination of the two, balanced by restrictions of ultimate power for either branch?
That's not a question to take lightly, as we are suddenly experiencing quite the upsurge in judicial decisions that overturn or seriously challenge the application and interpretation of the Constitution as we know it.
As citizens of a nation that is based on the rule of law, this is a critical matter.
Our Constitution provides and guarantees us certain inalienable rights. It is because of the strict interpretation of our Bill of Rights that all of us have grown up in a society where much is taken for granted that is not enjoyed or expected by citizens of other nations.
So the question at hand is, does the Judicial Branch on it's own, have the ability, responsibility, or right to re-interpret those rights and freedoms from the bench? And where does newly appointed Justice Rogers stand on this question himself. Therein lies the choice to celebrate or bemoan the appointment, IMHO, far and above the question of where he stands on any individual issue, because a conscientious application of the Constitution is not about serving public consensus on popular causes.
I'm not proposing any answers here, simply raising the questions, and inviting discussion and debate. I view this as an opportunity to revisit the US Constitution and do my own homework. This is, I believe what responsible citizens should and must do, before jumping into the spin machine on either side of the equation.
At the end of the day, it is not the judicial or the legislative branches that our founders meant to hold the ultimate power.
It is We the People who are gifted with that, so it is We the People who are charged with the responsibility to protect and defend our own rights and freedoms.
Information is power, and that platitude is never more true than when applied to the function of the US Constitution.
These are fascinating times we live in, and what I am celebrating today is the great gift of our Constutition, and this historic moment of being witness to one of it's most important processes, and yes, a participant as well, simply by right of my ability to speak my mind in public. Which really isn't a simple right at all. It takes a lot of defending!