Uncivil Rights

A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT. "Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Changing the Constitution

When I became union president, I swore to uphold the tenets of our contract under its original intent as agreed between labor and management. Negotiations were open and fair, and both sides negotiated in good faith. I did not agree with everything in our contract, but I upheld it as I expected management to follow it.

As I have explained to GBlagg on many occasions, even employees that deserved to be punished had a right to be represented, and management was held accountable to follow the disciplinary procedure as set forth in that contract. Many times, employees that deserved punishment were absolved from that punishment due to management’s incompetence or refusal to follow the contract. The goal was to always make sure the contract was followed.

If the union or management wanted changes made to the contract, those changes were achieved through negotiations; never interpretation. Management would never agree to new interpretation of the contract, just as a union would never allow management to change the interpretation. If changes were wanted or needed, one party sent a notice of intended changes to the other party. Only if both parties agreed to open the contract would negotiations begin. Agreement of changes would be in the form of a Letter of Agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding or an Amendment.

So what is so different when discussing the Constitution of the United States?

The Constitution was written with rules and procedures to change its meaning and expand its scope; those changes are called “amendments”. It is a “living document” in that; changes can be made to allow for a changing society and environment. “Original intent” applies, not only to the original document, but also to all the amendments as intended at the time of the adoption of those amendments. Interpretation was never intended as a means to change the constitution, if it were, those rules and procedures to amend the document would not have been included; there would be no need to include them.

However, the liberal-progressive-socialist agenda would never make it through the constitutional change process as set forth in the document. The majority of the people and the majority of the state legislatures would never agree to change the constitution and adapt the liberal agenda. I think this has been very evident in the last few elections. Therefore, the only way the liberal-progressive agenda has been instituted has been through the Supreme Court and its interpretational changes to the constitution.

One of the major areas of concern is the Roe v. Wade decision. I’m pretty sure the framers of our constitution never thought of abortion rights, but now, through interpretation, it is a constitutional right. The correct decision would have been to say the constitution is silent on abortion. Therefore, either an amendment is needed to the constitution, and the process to create and implement that change is started, or it becomes a state issue.

It bothers me to here politicians claim that an originalist on the Supreme Court will bring back segregation and take away the rights of women and minorities. This is nothing more than a scare tactic used by the liberals. As Justice Scalia once said, there is no moderate interpretation of the constitution. It is simply fear of loss, the loss of power and control, by the liberal-progressive-socialists who realized the court was their last bastion of power to implement their agenda, and they know they are losing the fight.

It also bothers me to hear people label current and potential justices. The terms liberal and conservative are misused in this instance. I believe more appropriate terms for Supreme Court justices would be originalist and legislativist. An originalist interprets the constitution and its amendments in the context of original intent. A legislativist, on the hand, would change the constitution through interpretation, thereby becoming a type of super-legislator, and a non-elected one at that.

Hopefully, President Bush will select an originalist to the Supreme Court. At least it will be a start to re-distribute congressional powers as they were originally intended. The Congress can create laws, and the Supreme Court can go back to interpreting laws.
totalkaosdave, 5:12 PM