Abortion ban

"The South Dakota Legislature planned a final vote today on adopting an abortion ban that would create a constitutional challenge of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing the right of women across the U.S. to medically terminate pregnancies" (Bloomberg).

I have no idea if it will pass or not. If it passes, it will obviously go before the Supreme Court. As you may be aware, it passed the State House overwhelmingly, and squeaked by the State Senate. After some changes to the bill the Senate then rejected it. Apparently it’s making its way back. I will keep you updated on the latest developments.

There is a great chance that Roe v. Wade will soon be overturned.

Presidential blunders

Have you seen the top ten Presidential blunders?

If Iran Contra, and Lewinsky-Gate are numbers nine and ten, shouldn't FDR's detainment of Italian, German, and Japanese Americans be on the list?

Shouldn't Lincoln's unconstitutional war be on there?

If number five is "Richard Nixon got involved in the Watergate cover-up." Shouldn't JFK's use of the IRS to severely attack his political enemies be on there?

Whoever put this list together did not do much research.

If you've got any more Presidential blunders that should have been included feel free to comment.

Originalism

Justice Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."
"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."
"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things"(AP).

This really wasn't news but it infuriated the media.


“Our Constitution is a living and breathing document able to grow as this country grows” (Al Gore).

To which one blogger replied, "I'd LOVE play Poker with Al Gore with a set of Living, breathing rules!"



"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators" (James Madison).

"The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous" (Alexander Hamilton).


There is a prescribed procedure for amending the Constitution. Judges shouldn't create penumbras.

Consequences...

“Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says he frequently makes decisions about a law's constitutionality by considering its purposes and consequences, which puts him at odds with fellow justices who try to adhere strictly to the language of the Constitution” (Associated Press).

(“I tend to emphasize purpose and consequences," said Breyer, who was nominated for the high court by President Clinton. "Others emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text, history and tradition -- believing that those help you reach a more objective answer").

Consequences? Your job is to interpret the Constitution, not to decide cases based upon how they may affect people, or precedent.

Imagine the Yankees vs. The Red Sox. The umpire fails to call the game as it should have been called (for the Yankees). Instead he calls it for the Red Sox because he fears riots. Some may say he is looking out for Americans, but he wasn’t doing his job.

“…The danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defense of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day” (Joseph Story).

Rare agreement w/ ACLU

The folks at "Stop the ACLU" are going to be displeased with me.

The city of Santa Cruz, California, is asking a federal judge to approve the distributing of "medical" marijuana to sick and dying patients through an appropriate means. The ACLU, and the DPA have joined the fight.

On June 6, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can ban possession of the drug, citing that Congress has the power to regulate items that have a tremendous affect on interstate commerce.

The "interstate commerce clause" refers to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. "The Congress shall have Power.....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." In 1995, then Chief Justice Rehnquist interpreted it as meaning that Congress only had the power to regulate 1) the channels of commerce, 2) the instrumentalities of commerce, and 3) actions that substantially affect interstate commerce. What does all of this mean? Does it take away authority from the States? In Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), the court found that the commerce clause does not give the federal government the power to abolish immunity from the States. Justices Scalia, and Kennedy who both agreed with the courts ruling, sadly changed their positions during the 2005 decision.

I agree with the Rehnquist interpretation, because as Justice Thomas once mentioned, the commerce clause does not confer on Congress a general "police power" over the nation. The Rehnquist interpretation would be in line with the intentions of the framers. California voters approved a proposition in 1996 allowing medical marijuana. They have that right, and it is not prohibited by the Constitution. Chief Justice Rehnquist was a great man, and I still admire him.

Fox

Mercury News