Do you personally believe in changing the Constitution through amendment or judicial fiat?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

It's interesting to me how many people of one particular persuasion seem to favor the the latter over the former. The only people of that persuasion who didn't support it that come to mind claimed that any change to the Constitution at all is un-American if not entirely illegal on the grounds that it's the law of the land. Which school of thought do you associate with personally? Should we insist that any changes go through the amendment process, use activist judges to reinterpret inconvenient aspects of it to agree with current agenda, or refrain from ever touching it at all?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's interesting to me how many people of one particular persuasion seem to favor the the latter over the former. The only people of that persuasion who didn't support it that come to mind claimed that any change to the Constitution at all is un-American if not entirely illegal on the grounds that it's the law of the land. Which school of thought do you associate with personally? Should we insist that any changes go through the amendment process, use activist judges to reinterpret inconvenient aspects of it to agree with current agenda, or refrain from ever touching it at all?

There is no such thing as 'judicial fiat,' where the rulings of the Supreme Court do not constitute 'changing' the Constitution. The notion is ridiculous and ignorant. Also ridiculous and ignorant is the notion of 'activist judges.'

Articles III and VI recognize the doctrine of judicial review and authorize the Federal courts to rule on the conflicts and controversies of the day in accordance with Constitutional jurisprudence, and as to the meaning of the Founding Document, having nothing to do with any 'current agenda.'

The Founding Generation fully expected the judiciary to review state and Federal laws to determine their constitutionality, and invalidate those found to be repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

All I can say is...

Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[AntiParty]

It's interesting to me how many people of one particular persuasion seem to favor the the latter over the former. The only people of that persuasion who didn't support it that come to mind claimed that any change to the Constitution at all is un-American if not entirely illegal on the grounds that it's the law of the land. Which school of thought do you associate with personally? Should we insist that any changes go through the amendment process, use activist judges to reinterpret inconvenient aspects of it to agree with current agenda, or refrain from ever touching it at all?

Change was written into the Constitution for a reason. WE THE PEOPLE GET SMARTER EVERY DAY. To ignore that is ignorance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All I can say is...

Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And that's all you can say.