Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia Dead

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's much more impossible than you're insinuating.

They've amended it 27 times (10 were all at once at the start, but still) as recently as 1992. Doesn't seem impossible...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I don't follow the US supreme court at all, but if there is a process for amending the constitution written in, wouldn't that be the correct way to go about changing it, as opposed to some judges deciding?

It must be practical or at least possible to happen, haven't they amended it dozens of times?

Why I prefer the living document concept is that the intent of say Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was everyone is equal. Just because you don't list all the ways of people being equal doesn't mean they should be excluded.

If you go originalists intent you need to be constantly adjusting the constitution to create social change which slows it down and given that its usually about minority rights its not often politically viable to convince the majority. Even with a living tree interpretation you could always amend the constitution after a Supreme Court ruling to nullify that ruling. If 38 states got together they could ban gay marriage if they wanted to in the constitution and that would be legal precedent.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why I prefer the living document concept is that the intent of say Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was everyone is equal. Just because you don't list all the ways of people being equal doesn't mean they should be excluded.

If you go originalists intent you need to be constantly adjusting the constitution to create social change which slows it down and given that its usually about minority rights its not often politically viable to convince the majority. Even with a living tree interpretation you could always amend the constitution after a Supreme Court ruling to nullify that ruling. If 38 states got together they could ban gay marriage if they wanted to in the constitution and that would be legal precedent.

Fair enough. I would comment that Amendment 9 should probably protect the rights of people to marry. Marriage isn't specifically mentioned in the US constitution (I just checked), but amendment 9 says this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amen....uSoIykMQ.dpuf



I actually think FDR getting at least partially blocked on his huge expansion of Federal Powers (in direct opposition to Amendment 10) was the exact purpose of the separation of powers to the Supreme Court.

The Federalists vs Antifederalist debate at the founding of the US is actually really interesting. Weird thread to have got me reading that, but whatever.