This points to the fact that we are getting a more-secular Republican Party. Here is the central paragraph of Robertson's announcement:
To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits. Uppermost in the minds of social conservatives is the selection of future Supreme Court justices and lower court judges who will sit in both the federal circuit courts and the district courts.

That is, that political preferences are, and should be, driven primarily by the secular concerns of war and taxes.

That is quite a shift from what he said just after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Where he declared them to be God's punishment of America for our sinful secular ways, in fact that came a little too close to the religious outlook of our enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

This points to the fact that we are getting a more-secular Republican Party. Here is the central paragraph of Robertson's announcement:

To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits. Uppermost in the minds of social conservatives is the selection of future Supreme Court justices and lower court judges who will sit in both the federal circuit courts and the district courts.

That is, that political preferences are, and should be, driven primarily by the secular concerns of war and taxes.

---

He did manage to throw "the blood lust of Islamic terrorists" in that opening line which gives him some religious cover along with the Supremes remark.

Quote:

---

That is quite a shift from what he said just after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Where he declared them to be God's punishment of America for our sinful secular ways, in fact that came a little too close to the religious outlook of our enemies.

---

And that's why most of us distance ourselves from Robertson - sounds a little like Fred Phelps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

He did manage to throw "the blood lust of Islamic terrorists" in that opening line which gives him some religious cover along with the Supremes remark.



And that's why most of us distance ourselves from Robertson - sounds a little like Fred Phelps.

---

Giuliani assumed that he could satisfy conservatives with nothing more than a promise to appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the federal courts. What does that mean…"strict constructionist"…Giuliani has not promised to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade and the Republicans are not so stupid that they don't realize this; no, they are prepared to slip to the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Giuliani assumed that he could satisfy conservatives with nothing more than a promise to appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the federal courts. What does that mean…"strict constructionist"…Giuliani has not promised to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade and the Republicans are not so stupid that they don’t realize this; no, they are prepared to slip to the left.

---

If the GOP wants to win the swing voters they're going to have to 'slip to the left' a little. Just like the left moved to the right a little last year - at least until after the election.

There is not much else the President can do to influence the debate but to select the right judges . Oh,he has the bully pulpit but the courts created the controversy and in the courts (or an amendment )will the issue be resolved . Rudy gave specific names of Judges ;and his advisory team is full of people who have an originalist philosophy(I don't like the term "strict constructionist " and neither does Justice Scalia ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is not much else the President can do to influence the debate but to select the right judges . Oh,he has the bully pulpit but the courts created the controversy and in the courts (or an amendment )will the issue be resolved . Rudy gave specific names of Judges ;and his advisory team is full of people who have an originalist philosophy(I don't like the term "strict constructionist " and neither does Justice Scalia ).

---

Which is added weight to my theses that the “Right is slipping left”. The Right argues that originalist philosophy is no more than making the law say what you think it should say, rather than submitting to what it does say; therefore, submitting to originalist philosophy is ‘slipping to the left”.

Please explain :

Quote:

---

The Right argues that originalist philosophy is no more than making the law say what you think it should say, rather than submitting to what it does say

---

That is not how I read originalism at all. originalism is a family of theories which share the starting point that a Constitution (or statute) has a fixed and knowable meaning which is established at the time of passage or ratification.Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

please explain :

That is not how I read originalism at all. originalism is a family of theories which share the starting point that a Constitution (or statute) has a fixed and knowable meaning which is established at the time of passage or ratification.Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Living Constitutionalists often suggest that it is the true originalist philosophy, while originalists generally agree that phrases such as "just compensation" should be applied differently than 200 years ago. It has been suggested that the true difference between these judicial philosophies does not regard "meaning" at all, but rather, the correct application of Constitutional principles.[18] A Living Constitutionalist would not necessarily state, for instance, that the meaning of "liberty" has changed since 1791. It may be what it always has always been: a general principle recognizing individual freedom. The important change then might be in what is recognized as liberty today, that was not fully recognized two centuries ago. This view was enunciated for the Supreme Court by Justice George Sutherland in 1926:

[W]hile the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall.[

Quote:

---

[W]hile the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation.

---

I think that if the Constitution is a "living document " (one that changes with the times) to be reinterpreted by succeeding generations ;the better alternative would be to scrap the whole document and let each generation write it's own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I think that if the Constitution is a "living document " (one that changes with the times) to be reinterpreted by succeeding generations ;the better alternative would be to scrap the whole document and let each generation write it's own.

---

Justice Antonin Scalia on the matter living Constituation:

[There'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; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.. . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court.. . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable.

On the other hand the argument against a living constitution:
The strongest argument against the doctrine of "Living Constitution" comes not from its moderate use, but when the concept has been abused as a method of activism. The term presumes the premise of “that which is written is insufficient in light of what has transpired since”. This more moderate concept is generally not the target of those who are against the "Living Constitution". The concept considered perverse by constructionalists is "making the law say what you think it should say, rather than submitting to what it does say".
Another argument against the concept of a "living Constitution" ironically, is similar to the argument for it; the fact that the Constitution itself is silent on the matter of constitutional interpretation.

The doctrine of the "living Constitution" relies on the concept that the original framers either could not come to a consensus about how to interpret, or they never intended any fixed method of interpretation. This would then allow future generations the freedom to reexamine for themselves how to interpret the Constitution.
This view does not take into account why the original constitution does not allow for judicial interpretation in any form. The Supreme Court's power for constitutional review, and by extension its interpretation, did not come about until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The concept for a "living constitution" therefore relies on an argument regarding the writing of the constitution that had no validity when the constitution was written.

The views of constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe are often described by conservative critics such as Robert Bork as being characteristic of the “living Constitution paradigm” they condemn. Bork labels Tribe's approach as "protean," meaning that it was whatever Tribe needed it to be to reach a desired policy outcome. (Tribe rejects both the term and the description) Such a construction appears to define “living Constitution” doctrine as being an ends dictate the means anti-law philosophy

Living Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

This view does not take into account why the original constitution does not allow for judicial interpretation in any form. The Supreme Court's power for constitutional review, and by extension its interpretation, did not come about until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The concept for a "living constitution" therefore relies on an argument regarding the writing of the constitution that had no validity when the constitution was written.

---

I take you back to my comments about Ron Paul

Quote:

---

Actually ;I wonder what Ron Paul thinks about Judicial review ? Certainly the Supreme court divined that power unto itself in in Marbury v. Madison... right ?

---

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...at-150948.html

I happen to agree the Marbury V Madison was judicial over reach because of the way it has been interpreted to mean that SCOTUS is the final arbiter. That whole notion is perverse . Anyone who thinks the founders would give the final call to unelected black robed oligarchs completely misreads intent.

My answer to the question about intent is that it is indeed not always evident in the Constitution if the Constitution is your only source of reference . But we should be eternally grateful to Hamilton , Madison ,and John Jay for their essays on the constitution they penned during the ratification phase .Their attempts at persuasion left a lasting guide to the person trying to divine the thought process of the founders.

It also takes an understanding of English common law and the principles of the Enlightenment to understand "original intent ".

It also takes an understanding of the hours of compromise the founders put into the effort 'to form a more perfect Union' .

I agree with Bork . When a decision is made with the preconception of a desired outcome then the justice ;be they liberal ,conservative ,whatever is an activist judge.

I heard about it on Glen Beck today. He said that they handed her a binder and told her she had to pick a question from the student section. She said of course it is going to be asked by a young person when they handed her the binder and pre-picked her for asking a question from that section.