Comments on: Depends on What Your Definition of ‘Advice and Consent’ Is

By: Viagra

Viagra — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:34:00 +0000

I think the idea is good but you need to modify it a little.

By: Consolidation

Consolidation — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:22:37 +0000

complex post. due one unimportant where I contest with it. I am emailing you in detail.

By: Roger S., MA.

Roger S., MA. — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:58:52 +0000

The debate between a “living” constitution and a “cemented” one is a straw-man, generally advanced by left-of center liberals when the constitution would not grant them the alleged “rights” they seek, such as a right to a job, the right to free healthcare, subsidized housing, etc. But that’s not the nature of a constitution, to be expanded, whenever, to encompass a liberal’s limitless wish for an unearned Garden of Eden. Were it otherwise, why have a constitution in the first place. No ! The Constitution is about the “rights of man”, every man’s, especially as concerns the limits placed upon his government’s right to govern his actions. Our US Constitution, especially, concerns above all the limits on Government to interfere in an individual’s life. As such, it is very much “cemented”, “cast-in-concrete” even, and fully meant to be. Again, what point having a constitution if it were to be as malleable as any other act of legislation? That’s also why the hurdle to its amendment was from the very beginning set significantly higher than for any other legislative act. That’s why a carefully wraught balance of powers was incorporated. And, that’s what made it so unique and revolutionary from its own time to this very day. Why somebody as diregardful of it, as ready to play with it the role of judicial activist, as mediocre in her past performance, as Sotomayor, doesn’t belong in an institution whose sole purpose is to uphold and defend it. Why all of our lives are at stake in an incalculable way if too many legal and philosophical lightweights end up on the Supreme Court.

By: Jarad, Long Beach CA

Jarad, Long Beach CA — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:14:27 +0000

I absolutely agree. I say this as a left leaning Independent. No side is perfect, no nomination unquestionable. I believe that rushing a nomination of such importance is always a mistake. The debate in the media has been absurd, unfortunately. I say unfortunate because there is a true, hidden, important philosophical debate at hand, underneath the racism and sexism calls, and the nitpicking of speeches. This debate lies between constitutionalists.
The debate between the belief in a breathing constitution and a cemented one may be considered too lofty a story for our perceived dim public, but it’s one that we could all benefit from. I disagree with filibustering in most situations, but a thoughtful consideration by the senate in such a large choice is paramount. We would be cheating ourselves otherwise.