Justice Souter's Speech about Constitutional Interpretation

Is a "fair reading" of the words of the Constitution is enough for Judges to decide most any case or controversy? Does looking beyond the actual words of the Constitution amount to something derisively called "activism?"

I have come to believe that the Constitution is an open-ended document that promises a great many things to a great many people-- not all of which can fully exist at the same time: equality and liberty; security and freedom; personal protection and personal privacy.

Justice Souter in a recent speech takes a few minutes to explain why expecting a judge to act like a baseball umpire- applying the facts to the written law- is a non-existent possibility because "meaning" changes even when the law and the facts do not. He even states that it would be a violation of a Justice's oath to substitute a guess of another's possible intent (even the framer's) in lieu of his own understanding of the law.


Click here for the Text of Justice Souter's Speech

Souter is a typical elite pinhead. The meaning of what the Founders meant when they actually wrote the Constitution doesn't change. That is why using today's meanings is an 'out' for activist judges/justices to legislate from the bench. The Constitution isn't a document promising ANYTHING. It is a document that spells out the very LIMITED roles of the federal government.

proutdoors wrote:

Souter is a typical elite pinhead.

Name calling on the first post? Nice.

proutdoors wrote:

The meaning of what the Founders meant when they actually wrote the Constitution doesn't change. That is why using today's meanings is an 'out' for activist judges/justices to legislate from the bench.

Really? So explain how the meaning of "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Went from "segregation by race is OK" (paraphrasing Plessy v. Ferguson--a case decided within the lifetime of the framers of the 14th amendment) to "sepperate cannot be equal" (the gist of Brown v. Board of Education)?

proutdoors wrote:

The Constitution isn’t a document promising ANYTHING.

What about this promise?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

proutdoors wrote:

It is a document that spells out the very LIMITED roles of the federal government.

How LIMITED does this sound?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...

I'll grant that the federal government is a body of limited authority, but let's be honest with ourselves, if the federal government is charged to "provide for the general welfare of the United States" it has a broad authority to act-- just not an unlimited one.

Article 1, section 8 goes on to list what Congress can do specifically, in addition to "provide for the general welfare." Check out the very first enumerated power To borrow money on the credit of the United States. (Whether they should or not-that's a different discussion.)

The list of specific powers goes on to include such short, but rich, items as:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies; to coin money, regulate the value thereof, (to regulate the value of money! But wait, Pro always says that isn't in the Constitution?!); to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.

I think it's interesting that there are those that think the Constitution is an open ended document, and there are those that believe its language then, is applicable now.

No matter which way you prefer, it makes for interesting discussion.

Another interesting discussion on Judges. (Click here!)

Quote :

“Formalist” and “realist,” Tamanaha explains, are “insults” hurled at opponents who have reached a decision one strongly disagrees with.

interesting read Trooper