July 02, 2005

It's time for a Constitutionalist

Representative Nancy Pelosi on the Supreme Court's ruling in eminent domain: "This is almost as if God has spoken."

Pelosi was saying this in response to an amendment added to a spending bill in the House which would shut off Federal funding going to cities that employ the new authority of eminent domain as a result of Kelo vs. City of New London. That bill passed with a vote of 231-189 (*note: Congressman and candidate for US Senate Harold Ford, Jr. voted against this bill as he thinks that Kelo was a good decision).

As an aside...The unfortunate thing is that Congress has almost unlimited power when it comes to swaying local governments in a particular direction with its use of Federal dollars. However, that's a subject for a different time.

Mrs. Pelosi should take note that the Supreme Court is not God. They are only supposed to be a check and a balance...just like Congress...and just like the executive branch.

Some people (i.e...NOW, Pelosi, Ford, Jr.) apparently wish to see the Supreme Court as an oligarchy that has the final say on everything in this country. Of course, that is as long as it's decisions favor their particular social agenda(s). This type of mindset has caused the creation of a court that no longer interprets the United States Constitution as they are supposed to. What those on the left can't understand is that this, in turn, allows the creation of a bigger government that goes well beyond its Constitutional limitations. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have .... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

That is why it is so imperative that Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement be a strict Constitutionalist. When the government is allowed to do things beyond it's Constitutional limitations (this includes all three branches of government), liberty is diminished.

Kelo is the most recent example of liberty lost, but perhaps it came at a perfect time. Perhaps it will spark a movement for the nomination and confirmation of a justice to the Supreme Court that will no longer follow the path of his or her personal whims or someone else's social agenda (or even international whims such as Justice Ginsburg seems to follow). The only litmus test that is needed for a Supreme Court justice is that they understand and follow the original intent of the Constitution.

That's why here in "Catoland," I support the nomination of Justice Alex Kozinski from the 9th Circuit Court. Every American who cherishes liberty should as well.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

Blake is right on both counts: there are people who (wrongly in the Founders' view) wish to see the Supreme Court as the final authority (check out my blog for more on that subject), and that President Bush should name a strict constructionist for the Supreme Court. Look at it this way: both the President and his nominee are going to be made out to be the devil no matter who he selects. The President might as well make the fight worth it.

Posted by: Bob K at July 2, 2005 10:32 PM

Sorry Bob, but Blake isn't right. At least not on this post. The founding fathers wrote a vague standard, and Kelo exploited it. The SCOTUS interpreted it 5-4. While you may scream "liberal court" or "activist judges", what it really means is that there was not consensus. We use consensus to decide legal cases every day, they are called jurys. That is not a bad thing. This can be revisited in another case, or the legislation rewritten. SCOTUS did their job, no more, no less. They rendered an interpretation just as the Constitution of the United States of America charges them to do.

Activist judge: a judge that renders an interpretation that you don't like.

Posted by: Short and Fat at July 2, 2005 11:14 PM

public use now equals private use? yeah, sounds vague to me.

Posted by: Ripper at July 3, 2005 01:32 AM

You've simplified it to the point that it doesn't hold it's original meaning, but according to this Supreme Court, and therefore our Constitution, that is what Ammendment 4 means.

I agree it is a poor ruling, and fortunately room is left for every state to repair the damage. Congress can repair the damage, too.

But "strict constituionalist" can be in the eye of the beholder. F'rinstance: the 2d ammendment. We (I assume most readers) are from/or live in the South. Even our liberals tend to be conservative on this ammendment, but what if your "strict constitutionalist" interpets the militia as "National Guard"? (Writer's note: I am right wing with regards to the personnal ownership of weapons, so I can only offer up a token example).

Posted by: Short and Fat at July 3, 2005 10:32 AM

The Founding Fathers were really great at planning for the future but I don't think they were so great at predicting actual events in the future.

Like writing a Constitution and meaning "The National Guard" when The National Guard did exist until the late 1800s.

*Bzzzt* wrong. Try again.

http://www.ngb.army.mil/ngbgomo/history/ngbhist.htm

Posted by: smantix at July 4, 2005 09:07 AM

Short and Fat, why are you arguing against a position I never took? Nowhere in my response or in my referened blog posting, or for that matter, in Blake's original post, do you find the terms "liberal" or "activist". Yet you argue as if those words are central to my point.

Your posting is quite apropos--but probably not as you intended. I believe that the President should nominate a justice who reads words as they are written, not as they intend them to sound.

Posted by: Bob K at July 5, 2005 09:57 AM