Why do we even have a Constitution in the first place?
I can’t believe I’m saying this about a man accomplished enough to become a Justice on the U.S.
He really believes that his personal opinions deserve more weight than the actual words enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
He justifies this megalomaniacal belief by posturing that the Founders’ words are antiquated and made invalid by the complexities of the modern world.
As an example he cites the First Amendment:
“Those words, ‘the freedom of speech,’ ‘Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech’ – neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet,” Breyer said.
With all due respect, Justice Breyer, what don’t you understand about the words “no law?”
It doesn’t matter if the law involvs town criers, television, or telepathy. The Constitution prohibits Congress for passing ANY law that abridges our right to say anything we damn well please. Despite the fevered assertions of generations of liberal lawyers and Justices, there is no ambiquity about “no law.” Of course, there are also plenty of laws abridging the Freedom of speech because the Supreme Court long ago abrogated its chief responsibility to ensure that Congress actually abided by the rules that the Founding Fathers so thoughtfully wrote down.
If nine un-elected men and women in black robes can vote their “feelings,” (regardless of the actual words written down on the one piece of paper they are sworn to support and defend) what’s the point of having a Constitution in the first place?
The Founders should have just written: ask the Supreme Court what to do, they’re in charge.
I think Justice Bryer ended up at the top of the wrong profession. Only one leader on the planet is supposedly infallible and his robes are white, not black.
1 comment December 4th, 2006