Quote:
Originally posted by NY Madman:
Maybe they should have been somewhat clearer in their definition of liberty.

Today we have people who feel that liberty entails the right to murder unborn children. We have even in the past had those who felt liberty entitled them to own another man as property. There was a Supreme Court back then who agreed with that ideal in the Dredd Scott decision.

The court has many times abused and bastardized the constitution to placate contemporary social trends. It has this ability precisely because the document is vague.

I would like to think that everyone on the court is also well versed in the [b]The Federalist Papers . While not law, they are a look into the mindset and reasoning of much of the constitution. I guess you can say the papers were the sales pitch of the constitution to the states. They should still be a source of reference for the members of the court.

On liberty Madison wrote in Federalist No. 63 "that liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty". I feel we are getting close to that point.

I wouldn't want it too narrowly defined. I am however tired of the abuses. I am more in favor of a constitutional amendment further defining the powers of the Supreme Court itself. It's hard to imagine the founders approving of many decisions the court has made in the name of liberty. They also certainly would never approve of a court who cites contemporary European law in a decision. They would demand for the immediate impeachment of any justice who did. So should we.[/b]
DAMMIT!! I had a response all written out and the topic got moved in here, so I lost it. Well, here's my brief summary...

So is it your position that the framer's essentially fucked up when they wrote the constitution? That they really didn't mean for the constitution to be a flexible document that would endure thru the years? That is a valid position, as it is shared by more than a few constitutional scholars. My feeling is simply that I don't think the Framers were that short-sighted or stupid. I think the length and generality of the constitution sheds a lot of light on what the framers were trying to accomplish. As far as the Federalist Papers go, they really only give the perspective of the federalists (go figure) - don't forget that even back in the early days there was some serious disagreement between the Federalists and the Republicans.

And to whoever moved the topic while I was trying to post... [Finger]