Comments on: Constitution in Exile

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:26:19 +0000

Interesting how they want to strike down the ESA and the CWA. I think the two are generally considered by anyone not-evil to be wholly good.
The people who don't support it have never been to Asia, it seems, where no such clean water laws exist and subsequently their water is undrinkable, spreading massive disease, stunted growth, and a host of other problems.
I agree that the courts need to be stronger on congress, but jesus christ, look at the patriot act, not the damned endangered species act.
Let's just pave over the whole country and call it progress.

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:04:56 +0000

Your piece has, curiously, summoned my recollections of Joe Biden questioning Robert Bork at his own ill-fated confirmation hearings -- just the idea that Biden thought he could engage Bork as an intellectual peer was preposterous, but it became painfully clear that (1) Biden had been minutely coached by some law review sharpie, and (2) still fully incapable of keeping up with Bork.

What a grave loss it was, not to have Bork on the Court.

By: Vote for Judges

Vote for Judges — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:34:03 +0000

The Law that Came In from the Cold
It's an elitist approach that discounts America's collective wisdom, except to the extent that the public elects the presidents who appoint the judges.

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:28:36 +0000

Around the Blogosphere, Part One
ACLU Stupidity (yes, I know it's redundant) Michelle Malkin, Immigration Blog (alos here), WizBang, Ace of Spades Fun with Google...

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:22:07 +0000

For a nonexistent movement, this one certainly has a lot of support.

By: Herb

Herb — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:41:41 +0000

Everyone seems to forget that our country is supposed to have a balance of power between the Legislative, Executive and Judical branches.
Our congress has forgotton that, as well as the Executve and the Judicial. Everyone in our government has demonstrated their hungar for power and seem to go to any length to exercise it. The result is and has been the roadmap to our own selfdistruction.

By: Rick DeMent

Rick DeMent — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:53:31 +0000

The federalist papers are only half the story though. You need to read the anti-federalist papers to hear about the other side of the ratification debate and to really understand that the founding fathers were not of one mind concerning the interpretation of the constitution.

By: The Unabrewer

The Unabrewer — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:45:23 +0000

I don't see a problem.
Jeffrey Rosen claims that Clarence Thomas thinks the Constitution is in exile: Lopez was a judicial landmark: it was the first time since the New Deal that the court had limited the power of the federal government on those grounds. What grounds? Why, t...

By: Bill Nesler

Bill Nesler — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:39:17 +0000

If you really want to understand the constitution read the federalist papers. After all these are some of the guys that wrote it.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:03:44 +0000

Antonin is "Prone to outbursts of temper; easily angered"?

By: Don Singleton

Don Singleton — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:46:13 +0000

Constitution in Exile
I view this just as NYT being worried about the possibility that Bush will nominate Thomas to become CJ when Rehnquist retires.

By: Maniakes

Maniakes — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:23:05 +0000

Ken, that passage says that the Constitution and Federal law and Treaties duely ratified are the supreme law of the land.

That tells me that a treaty may be overruled on constitutional grounds (just like laws can) or superceded by a law passed later.

In the case of the UN treaty, consider the War Powers Act and specific use-of-force resolutions passed by Congress.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:06:53 +0000

Ken,

No, you do not need to remind conservatives that the constitution says what it says, but I would be remiss to remind you that the article you cite applies to treaties the United States Congress actually ratifies.

No, I do not want a U.S. court to interpret our law based on a foriegn court's opinion or via a treaty the U.S. refuses to become a signatory to.

By: Half Sigma

Half Sigma — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:02:17 +0000

It's not just that FDR intimidated the Supreme Court, but as I explained today in my blog, he appointed eight Justices to the court, completely remaking it.

By: ken

ken — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:57:58 +0000

I don't think it would do any good to point out to conservatives that the US constitution, in plain language makes the adherence to treaties, including the UN treaty, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.