Post by cameron on Jun 12, 2005 2:04:07 GMT -8
I don't know if anyone else is familiar with this site but I have found it to be a great site for all things constitutional. Intellectually destroys Socialists and is a strong critic of Darwinism. Anyway I read this over there:
www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php
The View From 1776
Dissipating Constitutional Fog.
If the Constitution is to be amended, it must be in accordance with Article V of that document.
------------
Charles Krauthammer’s Thomas’s Originalism is a must-read. It refocuses us on the true role of the Supreme Court, which was intended to be no more than adjudicating legitimate cases arising under Federal statutes or the Constitution itself, not creation of new law overriding Congress or the states.
You should read the whole thing it's only a couple of paragraphs long and is a great introduction to Krauthammer’s slightly longer article. Krauthammer’s last paragraph is classic.
www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20050610.shtml
Charles Krauthammer: Thomas' originalism
I hope Bush nominates Thomas to succeed Rehnquist as chief justice, not just because honoring an originalist would be an important counterweight to the irresistible modern impulse to legislate from the bench, but perhaps more importantly, to expose the idiocy of the attacks on Thomas that will inevitably be results-oriented: hostile to women, opposed to gun-free schools ... and pro marijuana?
I too hope Bush nominates Thomas to head the court. I am not sure where I stand between Scalia and Thomas, and their differing views of Originalism. Scalia's argument against moving the court all of the sudden in a new direction, makes sense to me. My heart is with Thomas, and his argument that we should look to what the framers intended it to mean vs Scalia's dictionary and his argument of what it meant in practice, though.
www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php
The View From 1776
Dissipating Constitutional Fog.
If the Constitution is to be amended, it must be in accordance with Article V of that document.
------------
Charles Krauthammer’s Thomas’s Originalism is a must-read. It refocuses us on the true role of the Supreme Court, which was intended to be no more than adjudicating legitimate cases arising under Federal statutes or the Constitution itself, not creation of new law overriding Congress or the states.
You should read the whole thing it's only a couple of paragraphs long and is a great introduction to Krauthammer’s slightly longer article. Krauthammer’s last paragraph is classic.
www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20050610.shtml
Charles Krauthammer: Thomas' originalism
I hope Bush nominates Thomas to succeed Rehnquist as chief justice, not just because honoring an originalist would be an important counterweight to the irresistible modern impulse to legislate from the bench, but perhaps more importantly, to expose the idiocy of the attacks on Thomas that will inevitably be results-oriented: hostile to women, opposed to gun-free schools ... and pro marijuana?
I too hope Bush nominates Thomas to head the court. I am not sure where I stand between Scalia and Thomas, and their differing views of Originalism. Scalia's argument against moving the court all of the sudden in a new direction, makes sense to me. My heart is with Thomas, and his argument that we should look to what the framers intended it to mean vs Scalia's dictionary and his argument of what it meant in practice, though.