Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer against literal interpretation of Constitution

Josey1

Nation: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer speaks out against literal interpretation of Constitution Copyright APonline By DUNSTAN PRIAL, Associated Press NEW YORK (October 23, 2001 1:51 p.m. EDT) - Subtly jabbing at his conservative colleagues, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said those who favor a literal interpretation of the Constitution aren't necessarily following the framers' wishes.The men who wrote the Constitution left many important areas open to interpretation, Breyer said in a speech Monday at New York University School of Law."Those more literalist judges who emphasize language, history, tradition and precedent cannot justify their practices by claiming that is what the framers wanted," Breyer said, "For the framers did not say specifically what factors judges should emphasize when seeking to interpret the Constitution's open language."Judges should be wary of enforcing a strict reading of the Constitution, Breyer said.Five of the nine Supreme Court justices generally vote in favor of a literal interpretation - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor. The four others - Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - tend to be more open to contemporary interpretations.Breyer cited campaign finance reform as a current issue that warrants a contemporary constitutional interpretation. Some argue that limiting campaign contributions violates First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.Breyer noted the Constitution "does not define the freedom of speech in any detail. The nation's founders did not speak directly about campaign contributions."Breyer said campaign finance laws help promote participation in the democratic process and "help to further the kind of open public political discussion that the First Amendment also seeks to encourage, not simply as an end but also as a means to achieve a workable democracy."Earlier Monday, Breyer visited the site of the World Trade Center."I can't tell you anything you don't know," he said. "But it was important for me to see and share this experience with New York." http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/149616p-1465805c.html

salzo

That sounds just about right for a judge who feels that they have the power of legislation under their robes, and who think they know better what the founders meant than the founders.It is not known whether campaign finance would be considered unconstitutional, because the founders did not specifically say campaign monies was protected speech?I guess Mr. Breyer has not read the first amendment.I can just see his explanation why the second amendment is not protected from government infringement; "Well the founders never said specifically what arms were protected, therefore no arms are protected" or some variation of that.

turbo

Since the Justice has given his opinion publicly, as an honest jurist he ought to disqualify himself from any vote that might come up, with regard to the Constitution.After all, his explanation on this matter, has exposed him as biased toward, his own ambigious interpretation of what others (our founding fathers) where thinking when they wrote, debated then ratified, this document which is not only set in stone, but has become the cornerstone of the foundation to this GREAT NATION.This reminds me of a case, which was thrown out of court, when a man charged with killing a chicken, was beeing tried for causing great psychological distress on this animal, a judge threw the case out stating, that the mental state (nor what the chicken was thinking) of the chicken could not be proven.Isn't that the real issue, liberals think they not only know what is best for everyone else, but they also insist that only they can interpret correctly everyones thoughts, using skewed polling statistics.[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 10-24-2001).]

ironsites

Maybe, perhaps, since the Constitution belongs to the American people- the people should decide what it means. Couldn't the Government give "the people" credit for having enough intelligence to make this an issue for themselves. I sometimes feel they think we are too stupid to do anything but pay taxes and bend to their overactive verbal explanations. "Good gosh shucks and heckydurnitall".

salzo

IRONSITES- NO! NO! NO! We cant let the people decide what the constitution means. If we did that, you can kiss our rights goodbye. Since politicians are dishonest, judges are dishonest, the people are too stupid to trust there comprehension skills, maybe it is time to allow GRAMMAR experts to tell us what the constitution says.

badboybob

I'm no grammar expert and have no college degree but I can understand the constitution. Unfortunatly the socialists among us cannot.

---

So many guns to buy. So little money.

Judge Dread

* James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." * Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." * George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." * Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." * Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." * Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." The chief reason America has remained a free country is the widespread private ownership of firearms. Individual ownership of guns made the American Revolution possible. The principal purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain our freedom from government. It is an insult to our heritage to imply that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment just to protect deer hunters. My good friend, the late Reverend Stephen Dunker, C.M., was a missionary in China who was imprisoned by the Communists during the early 1950s. I heard him tell of his experiences many times. When the Communists first took over the area where he lived, they appeared to be good rulers. They established law and order and cleaned up the traffic in drugs and prostitutes. Then one day the Communist bosses announced, "You can see that we have established a good society and you have no need for your guns. Everyone must come in the night and dump all guns in the town square." The people believed and obeyed. The next day, the reign of terror began, with public executions and cruel imprisonments. Everyone accused of being a "landlord" was dragged through the streets and executed; a "landlord" was anyone who farmed his little plot of ground with two water buffalo instead of one. Gun confiscation leads to a loss of freedom, increased crime, and the government moving to the left. This has already happened in England and Australia. After Great Britain banned most guns in 1997, making armed self-defense punishable as murder, violence skyrocketed because criminals know that law abiding citizens have been disarmed. Armed crime rose 10% in 1998. The Sunday Times of London reported on the new black market in guns: "Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style execution." There has been such a heavy increase in the use of knives for violent attacks that new laws have been passed giving police the power to search anyone for knives in designated areas. In 1996 Australia banned 60% of all firearms and required registration of all guns and the licensing of gun owners. Police confiscated 640,381 firearms, going door to door without search warrants. Two years later, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that all crime had risen and armed robberies were up 44%. Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., described his first-hand experience in Cuba. Before 1958, Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista had all citizens register their firearms. After the revolution, Raul and Fidel Castro had their Communist thugs go door to door and, using the registration lists, confiscate all firearms. As soon as the Cubans were disarmed, that was the end of their freedom. Tyrannical governments kill far more people than private criminals. The Nazis conducted a massive search-and-seizure operation in 1933 to disarm their political opponents, in 1938 to disarm the Jews, and when they occupied Europe in 1939-41 they proclaimed the death penalty for anyone who failed to surrender all guns within 24 hours. The first line of safety has to be an ability to defend yourself. In some areas, a woman who is being stalked by her ex-husband must wait 10 days to buy a gun, even if her life has been threatened. Some cities criminalize carrying guns for self-defense but make exceptions for people carrying money or jewels. Are money and jewels more important to protect than people's lives? History teaches us that registration leads to the confiscation of guns and that is the goal of many gun control advocates. Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., told The New Yorker: "The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." Atlanta public-safety commissioner George Napper told U.S News, "If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law." Like those who "enforced the law" at Waco? or at Ruby Ridge? or invading a Miami home to grab Eli?n Gonzalez? The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." Polls show that up to 80% of the public believe citizens have a constitutional right to own guns. If the First Amendment read "A free press being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the freedom of speech, or of the press," nobody would argue that free speech belongs only to newspapers. Likewise, they should not argue that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to government agents. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), stated that the term "the people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All those five amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term "the people" to guarantee a right for individual citizens, not just some collective right of the state as a whole. There is no reason to believe that the Second Amendment uses the term "the people" differently from the other four amendments. The claim that "militia" just refers to the National Guard is ridiculous. The same Congress that passed the Second Amendment also passed the Militia Act of 1792 which defined militia as "each and every able-bodied male citizen" from age 18 to 45 (with some exceptions) and stated that each one shall "provide himself" with a gun, ammunition, and a bayonet. The currently effective Militia Act substantially keeps the same language ("all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45"), and further defines militia as: "(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." (10 U.S.C. 311) In recent years, a scholarly consensus has emerged across the political spectrum that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Between 1980 and 1995, of 39 law review articles, 35 noted the Supreme Court's prior acknowledgement of the individual right of the Second Amendment and only four claimed the right is a collective right of the states (and 3 of those 4 were authored or co-authored by persons connected with the gun-control lobby). The Founding Fathers on the Right to Own Guns: * James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." * Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." * George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." * Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." * Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." * Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." _____ For more information: John Lott Jr., More Guns, Less Crime (2nd edition, 2000). Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., articles on England and Australia in the Medical Sentinel, May/June 2000, and letter on Cuba to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, December 28, 1999. Professor Sanford Levinson, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," Yale Law Journal, 1989. Professor James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts about Gun Control," The Public Interest, Spring 1988. Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, Independent Institute, 1994, and the Wall Street Journal, June 4, 1999. Daniel D. Polsby, Firearms and Crime, Independent Institute, 1997. Joyce Lee Malcolm, lecture at the Independent Institute, September 21, 1999, http://www.independent.org/ For law review articles, gun court cases, and the 1982 Senate report, see http://www.2ndlawlib.org/. >>

---

I judge Thee!, Not for what you are , but for what you say !

jazz

What he needs is removal from the bench.He ought to go back and re-read the wholeConstitution, every single line and getenlightened by It's contents.

JudgeColt

This guy is a Klinton appointee. This is what all the idiots who voted in 1992 for Perot over Bush41 gave us. He is now there for life. I am so thankful that we do not have Gore waiting to appoint more of the same. NEVER, EVER VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE NO MATTER HOW ATTRACTIVE. Thanks to the Democrats who voted for Nader, we have Bush43, which proves my point. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the opposition. Remember, the Assault Weapons bill sunsets in 2004. Midterm elections next year will be the most important in decades. We have to regain the Senate and hold the house. Then, maybe, we can start repairing all the damage done since we last had a Republican president and Republican congress. Vote Republican in 2002 and 2004.