Tuesday, June 28, 2016

No Supreme Law Needed?

     It appears that that’s what U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner thinks:

     Judge Richard A. Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, has published an op-ed at Slate declaring that the U.S. Constitution is a waste of time.
     And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.

     In short, let’s not let the dead bury the living.

     But the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It is the arbiter for whether legislated laws are acceptable and possess governing force. If the Constitution is to be ignored, against what standard, then, will legislated laws be judged valid or invalid?

     A year and a day ago, I wrote:

     The Supreme Court has just written into our “Constitutional” framework that:
  • The text of a law doesn’t matter;
  • The text of the Constitution doesn’t matter;
  • What a majority of “Justices” imagine about what those who passed the law intended are of decisive legal weight;
  • There is no human practice, custom, tradition, or institution which the State cannot seize and tax, regulate, reorganize, or completely redefine to suit itself.

     The entire edifice of constitutionalism has just been ceremoniously trashed. Oh, we could see it coming from miles away. At least, I could; I’ve been watching this progression too closely and for too long to harbor any illusions about it. However, I must admit that I didn’t expect it to happen quite so rapidly or precipitously. Alvin Toffler would have something to say about that, wouldn’t he?

     We will pay for this in blood. I can only hope that the first persons to render up their due will be those selfsame “Justices.”

     Back then, my conclusions were only implicit in recent Supreme Court decisions. But now, a highly respected Court of Appeals judge, who has occasionally been mentioned as a reasonable choice for the Supreme Court, has expressed them openly. How much longer will it be before a majority of the Court signs onto a decision that explicitly nullifies the Constitution in all respects – and what will we do then?

     Keep your powder dry, Gentle Reader.

5 comments:

  1. Read an article entitled Cold Anger that perfectly expresses what I feel:

    COLD ANGER...at the UnConstitutional, UnAmerican actions of our federal government;
    and, RESOLVE to restore our Constitutional Republic.


    AmericanAgain.net (Enforcing Constitutionally Limited Government)

    ReplyDelete
  2. During a recent forced interaction with a federal "public servant", where anything I say or do would likely be torn from its context and used to destroy my life with impunity, I found myself wondering, had this stooge been alive 240 years ago, on which side would he place himself? Then I wondered where he kept his red coat.

    When the freedoms in the constitution are infringed and abridged while the rights which are to be expressly protected by our servants (e.g. life) are terminated before they may ever defend themselves, and when the stormtroopers in every bureau and department and chamber believe without question that individual rights are subject to the collective benefit and government restrictions, the government has officially switched sides and is now against the people. That I could face another encounter with the aforementioned stormtrooper stooges for claiming such a thing is further evidence of this truth.

    Keep your powder dry, indeed...

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's the most chilling thing you've written about, Fran. That "common law of constitutional law" is the precise formula for judicial tyranny. In truth, Posner only states explicitly what has been established implicitly but forever abandons the Constitution even as some kind of a vague reference point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What none of these bureaucrats realize is that that the words in that outdated Constitution are a lot more important to their lives then to the lives of "those ugly little masses.
    Because if the high and mighty decide that the law only means what they say it means, then I suspect that those ugly little masses will decided "goose and gander". And there are a lot more geese then ganders.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "If the Constitution is to be ignored, against what standard, then, will legislated laws be judged valid or invalid?"

    Fuehrerprinzip, of course.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.