[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Kazan
WMC: good analysis but "activist judge" is a bad term - and the people you were refering to by this would think "what were they thinking when they wrote this? and how does it apply today?"

strict constructionists follow the exact letter of the law (often trying to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law)

Well, my personal opinion is that 'constructionist judges' are ones that interpret the law as it was meant to apply, to the best of their capacity.

'Activist judges', on the other hand, (I don't have a better term, and this one is pretty common) interpret the law based more on how it should be interpreted today, again to the best of their capacity.

Whether someone who argues the text of a law depends on the situation. It could be either activist or constructionist, actually. If a judge interpreted the 'freedom of speech' as I did below, I would be VERY suspicious as it obviously was meant to apply more to limiting the government's powers to oppress the people than to enable people to murder one another without consequence.

[Bobboau]

"Could you please show me some statistics and cite some sources to back up this part of your statement? "

well I promise you we have the highest reliance on it, because every other Western nation on the planet thinks of it as a joke. so the only question is what are the rates of teen pregency and abortion in the US and Europe.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Sapphire
I believe abstinance only hasn't been the majority choice in the school systems in the US.  There are no schools in our area which currently do this.  Abstinance may be presented as an alternative, but other methods are freely presented and described in detail along with the actual act of sex and bodily functions during.

AFAIK, the federally funded programs are allowed to go no further than presenting a variety of birth control options and the failure rates for each one. But abstinence is supposed to be stressed.

Sort of like "The pill works 98% of the time, condoms work 73% of the time, the only safe way is abstinence. Abstinence also reduces the chance of STDs to nothing...". I'm just pulling those statistics out of my ass, but that's what I get the impression that federally funded sex ed is supposed to teach.

Edit: I haven't seen the set of regulations/conditions that govern it. I suspect that most of the 'abstinence only' in sex ed would come from so-called bible belt communities, where the parents exert enough influence on the school to convince it, or the school itself decides, that anything beyond abstinence outside of marriage is immoral and teenagers should not be provided alternatives lest they feel free to 'experiment'.

[Kazan]

the founding fathers roll over in their graves every time someone uses the term "activist judges"

you have

strict constructionists (read: literalists)
and non-strict constructionists

the founding fathers roll over in their graves at the opinions of the strict constitrutionists too

if you read the 'supporting documentation' of the things the founding fathers wrote about what they were trying to do with the constitution it is very obvious that strict-constructionism is utterly and totally NOT what they intended

then there is always the fact that strict-csontructionism is consistently used to justify bigotry and religious oppression

[WMCoolmon]

then there is always the fact that strict-csontructionism is consistently used to justify bigotry and religious oppression

I'd define that as being an 'activist judge'. Actually, no, I wouldn't. I'd define that as being a 'bad judge', if a judge were ignoring the spirit of a law to push some agenda around contrary to what the law(s) were meant to mean.

The problem with non-strict constructionism is really that one person's interpretation of events can be different than another person's. If a judge chooses taking the words of the law literally because the true spirit of it or how the spirit of the law applies in the current situation is vague, I don't see anything wrong with that. If a bill barely passes in Congress, interpreting the law to mean something that would have caused it to have not been passed goes against how the legal system is supposed to work.

I get the impression that you think strict constructionism is inherently bad, which I disagree with - I think the real problem is, like I said, individual judges who use it as a way to advance some other agenda.

[Kazan]

strict constructionism is inherently _WRONG_ - as in that it's INCORRECT

it's NOT how the founding fathers wanted the constitution to be interpreted -- that is supported by their statements in other writtings



THEN add to that the fact that strict constructionism is the champion of the totalitarian theocrats agenda

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sapphire
Could you please show me some statistics and cite some sources to back up this part of your statement?

 I believe abstinance only hasn't been the majority choice in the school systems in the US.  There are no schools in our area which currently do this.  Abstinance may be presented as an alternative, but other methods are freely presented and described in detail along with the actual act of sex and bodily functions during.

I didn't say that it was a majority choice. Just that you have more of them than anywhere else.

That said.

Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says

The US teen pregnancy rate is in fact double that of any other western country. Sadly the UK is next. (I could find lots of places that gave me that statistic and lots of places that gave me tonnes of statistics but I found nothing in between (i.e a site with the statistics in an easy to read manner).

Might be worth taking a look at this though. Notice that although the UK has a higher rate of teen sex it has a lower rate of teen pregnancy.

[WMCoolmon]

...But that's an inherently non-strict constructionist view, because the other writings aren't part of the Constitution. They weren't agreed upon by the delegates to become part of the highest law of the land. If it was generally regarded at the time of the writing that the 'murder' law applied to unborn babies as well as adults, would you say that makes abortion illegal, punishable by the death penalty? (Which is actually pretty likely considering the time period)

[Kazan]

WMC: those other documents were written by the same men who wrote the constitution - clarifying their intentions in the constitution -  there weren't any "strict constructionsists" among the founding fathers

[WMCoolmon]

Right, but they aren't legal documents. Politics is the art of compromise; if two people are completely opposed to one another, the best you can hope for is a compromise. Outside documents shouldn't have the force of law, or else it ends up being a free-for-all where you can argue that senators or congressmen who personally dissented with a bill, but voted for it, can be used by a judge who doesn't like the law to overturn the law. And that effectively gives judges veto power, and the whole separation of powers thing blows up.

[Kazan]

"Right, but that aren't legal documents" -- that doesn't change the fact that they are important information to know when deciding how the constitution is suppose to apply

but they don't have force of law


a true strict constructionist wouldn't have the SCOTUS having the power of judicial review at all - but the neglect that and other 'inconveniences' making their position inconsistent

[WMCoolmon]

True. And IMHO that's something that's worked out pretty well. For whatever reason the SC cases I've heard about have tended to be on the side of what I'd consider 'right'. Perhaps because the SC doesn't have direct or indirect control over the armed forces/police and so have to be attentive to the opinion of the people, or else have their rulings be overruled by new laws from Congress.

[Ford Prefect]

I would like someone to explain to me how we can have a conditional policy with regards to abortions. How are we going to decide who qualifies for abortions and who doesn't? Because what I see there is an inevitable legal disaster.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I would like someone to explain to me how we can have a conditional policy with regards to abortions. How are we going to decide who qualifies for abortions and who doesn't? Because what I see there is an inevitable legal disaster.

Based upon the judgement of doctors and psychologists, I guess; although that could leave it dependent upon the opinions of said doctors and psychologists on the issue.....   I don't really see a fair conditional system being possible myself, either.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

after reading the rest of this thread all i have to say is that it's good to have Kazan back, now no one needs to form an opinion, we can just use his and know that it is right.  

yup, the ego has attracted another natural satellite.  Good thing that fusion can't take place in an ego or we would be in a binary system.

Don't bother, you've been placed on ignore.

[Kazan]

wow.. that was a realllly constructive post