I'm going to be looking for [judicial nominees] who respect that the Constitution is an organic, growing, evolving set of principles that have stood the test of time.
I can't tell if she doesn't know what "organic, growing, evolving" means, or if she doesn't know what "that have stood the test of time" means. But I am fairly certain this accurately reflects her views, and the views of most Democrats.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 21, 2008 11:10 AM | Email ThisSo, I can't speak for what Hil was trying to communicate, but please don't paint us all with the same Hillary brush, and I wont believe that you are all like McCain!
Posted by: sparky on June 21, 2008 11:43 AMYou really need to get out more and meet more of your fellow Democrats then. Many Democrats would have amended the document about 300-500 times by now if given the chance. Luckily, there are safeguards involved to protect it from the likes of Charles Schumer, Carl Levin (Ben Franklin wannabe), Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd, et al.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 21, 2008 11:52 AMHis speech is available on TVW (toggle to the 1:15 mark).
Here is the transcript:
"What happens in this election will determine what happens in the next 50 years, by who the next appointee is to the Supreme Court. Think about yesterday. On Friday, if we hadn't had five votes, Guantanamo would still be a gulag. But those Supreme Court justices said they had access to the courts and that's what the court really means."
Posted by: Steve Beren on June 21, 2008 12:16 PMIt will likely affect decisions for next 10 years maybe. After the first few decisions the electorate will ensure the democrats are back in opposition and unable to select judges incline to evolutionary interpretation.
Posted by: deadwood on June 21, 2008 12:56 PMThat said, I should have said "most Democratic politicians," not "most Democrats." The Democratic Party is diverse.
However, the people you all elect certainly, by and large, do not respect the plain language of the Constitution, nor the principles behind it. They do not believe in religious freedom from influence by the state. Some do not believe in free speech in any serious way (limits on campaign speech, conservative speech, hate speech, etc.). They do not believe in the right to meaningfully, physically, protect you and your family from the government. They do not believe in the right of local citizens to govern themselves, despite what the federal government wishes.
This last one is, of course, the biggie, and makes me still think it is probably accurate that "most Democrats" is correct. As James Madison said in reference to the usurpation of power at the federal level: "Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Steve Beren: I am still undecided on last week's Gitmo case. I agree with points on both sides (for instance, I have long contended that the lack of a time limit -- in the law, and in practice -- in the MCA/DTA for someone to receive a status determination from the CSRT was perhaps unconstitutional, even if we do NOT grant habeas to alien unlawful enemy combatants, because then anyone could be held indefinitely while awaiting his status determination, and only AFTER the status determination is granted does the right to file an appeal begin).
Of course, however, I disagree that the leftwing justices are more likely to provide us with, well, justice.
As pudge so eloquently put it, the Democratic party is very diverse. Assumptions are not always accurate.
Posted by: sparky on June 21, 2008 01:41 PMI'm not for a constitutional amendment as I don't believe in changing the document except for rare and extraordinary circumstances.
I said the people of California have overwhelmingly said no to gay marriage with Prop 22 and the senate overturned the will of the people of that state anyway.
I'm for a government that listens to the voters and not go off half cocked like they did on the "gay marriage" thing down in California. I would hope you would agree on that point.
...I would agree that the Democrat party is diverse, but not in the same manner as you would. Many that self identify with the Democrat party simply do so out of ignorance and really haven't seen where this party has strayed from the days of the FDR/JFK Democrats of 30-40 years ago. As Zell Miller pointed out, he didn't leave the Democratic party, it left him....and he's dead on right about that fact.
conduct foreign relations and to declare war. No states may have navies or standing armies, or engage in war, without permission of Congress (although the state militias are encouraged).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
I like the Constitution, I just wish it were more forceful in asserting what it actually says.
Because honestly, even if we only had the Articles, we still might be where we are, because these people ignore the law.
Why are you worrying about the Constitution? George Bush has proved that he is right when he said it is "just a goddamn piece of paper."
There is no evidence Bush ever said that. Sorry. Last I checked, not a single person who supposedly heard him has gone on the record to say so. Myths are fun, aren't they?
Regardless, this is irrelevant. You are subjecting us to the tu quoque fallacy: just because one person does bad things doesn't make it acceptable. You will not find many total and unflinching supporters of Bush here. Or McCain, for that matter.
Posted by: pudge on June 21, 2008 08:57 PMThe word "marriage" isn't in the constitution. There is an amendment about treating people equally, however, and many people (and some courts) believe this prohibits the government from letting some people marry the partner they want, but not others.
Posted by: Bruce on June 21, 2008 08:57 PM*hard to type love and not get more than a million ideas of what that is.....but rational folks know the correct meaning/application.
Posted by: Dengle on June 21, 2008 10:29 PMactually Bruce, you're wrong. The word "marriage" is quite apparent in both the Washington and California state constitutions and are legal statutes.
California's reads: ""Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; Ca. Fam. Sec. 308.5"
Washington states reads: ""Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female... A; Wa. Stat. 26.04.010 A(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited: (c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female"; Wa. Stat. 26.04.020"
It really is quite clear what "defines" the term marriage.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 22, 2008 10:04 AMAt no point in the history of this country have people been able to marry the partners they wanted without restriction. They have not been able to marry their sister, they have not been able to marry their dog, they have not been able to marry more than one person, and they have not been able to marry someone of the same sex. In this and throughout they have all been treated equally. Marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. Gays have the same rights here that everyone else does, to marry someone of the opposite sex. At issue here is nothing more than a redefinition of the word marriage to mean any two people that feel like getting hitched.
However, why do you stop there? Marriage has been a social institution because it is demonstrably good for society. If you are going to redefine it because a small minority wants to do something why are we not eliminating laws against polygamy at the same time? After all, why shouldn't people who love more than one person get to marry them? Why shouldn't we eliminate the laws against marrying your siblings? After all, if you want to marry the partner of your choice, why should the government be deciding who that choice should be?
Face it, the gay community has been working not on equality as they already have it, but on redefining our social traditions. They are couching it in terms of equality because that is what Americans connect to emotionally, but they are being dishonest in this debate.
Posted by: Calvin A on June 22, 2008 10:06 AMIf gays want the responsibility to pay another guys phone bill, credit cards, mortgage, etc., then I'm sure the bank is happy.
If a gay wants to not sleep with any other person or else lose at least half their earthly possessions then I'm sure the lawyers will be happy
If a gay wants to have higher taxes due the joint higher income, then I'm sure the government will be happy.
Marriage is about the responsibility of two people of the opposite sex toward each other for the purpose of having kids which at a minimum is an 18 year commitment.
In even more simple terms: a guy gets married to a women to have a higher level of confidence that the child she bares is his, to let other guys know she is taken with a ring, wedding, etc. a women gets a commitment that they guy is not going to leave suddenly without a huge financial loss once the kids come and to show the world that they are his kids.
Marriage is not about Hollywood LOVE where the story always ends at the alter and wedding party - it is a very functional contract / convenant which starts at the alter and continues for a lifetime. This is not religious as every culture has had the same basic concept. Gays don't have kids, Marriage therefore does NOT apply.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 22, 2008 03:10 PM"actually Bruce, you're wrong. The word "marriage" is quite apparent in both the Washington and California state constitutions and are legal statutes."
Rick, this seems like a bad faith answer to Bruce's point. First, I think Bruce was talking about the US Constitution, which does not mention "marriage."
Second, your two citations are not to the California and Washington state constitutions, but to CA and WA statutes. They're not the same thing.
The WA state constitution is at http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/constitution.htm
The word "marriage" only appears in the WA state constitution in the context of judicial authority to annull marriages.
The CA state constitution is at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const.html
It's a searchable document, and pretty easy to navigate. The word marriage only pops up with regards to property rights.
Addressing the substance of the debate: I can't predict the future better than anyone else, but I really doubt that extending the marriage franchise to same-sex couples is going to destroy the institution of marriage. Marriage is less important now than it used to be for other reasons: the rise of women in the workforce, which led to increased economic independence and obviated the "financial security" rationale for marriage; the availability of no-fault divorce; in some communities, the availability of government-provided welfare. Now, I'm not saying that all of these factors are unmitigated goods (although I will say that about the increase of women in the workforce), but they exert far more pressure on marriage as an institution than same-sex marriage could ever do.
========
CalvinA@22, your arguments are as tired as those of the racists who said "blacks have the same rights as anyone else, to marry someone of their own race". That didn't hold and neither, ultimately, will yours. It is simply unfair to tell some people that they cannot marry anyone due to their sexual orientation. Whether it is constitutional is an open question; so far most courts have ruled that it is, but that is starting to change and I am confident that you are on the wrong side of history here.
Slippery slope arguments make sense if -- but only if -- there is no clear place to stop on the slope. But there is no reason why gay marriage need lead us down a slippery slope. There are no serious equal protection arguments for polygamy, bestiality, or incest, but there is for gay marriage.
========
John McDonald@23, no, marriage is not "for the purpose of having kids which at a minimum is an 18 year commitment". That may be your philosophy, but neither parenting nor duration is specified by law, let alone custom (marriage began as a financial contract). Furthermore, I doubt you would accept gay marriage if they promised to have kids and stay together for 18 years. You write "gays don't have kids" but I think that would surprise my many gay friends who have given birth to, and are raising, kids.
Posted by: Bruce on June 22, 2008 08:22 PM