View Full Version : Judge Ginsburg on Egypt's constitution
She may have a point, but it is still quite disconcerting to hear this from a sitting SCOTUS judge...
Justice Ginsburg causes storm dissing the Constitution while abroad
By Alex Pappas
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a storm of controversy by saying in a television interview that the people of Egypt should not look to the United States Constitution when drafting their own governing document because it’s too old and there are newer examples from which to draw inspiration.
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.
Her comments have stunned writers across the conservative blogosphere, though many major media outlets have not given much attention to it.
In the interview, she argued that the United States has the “oldest written constitution still in force in the world,” so instead “you should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II.”
“I might look at the constitution of South Africa,” Ginsburg said. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary.”
Ginsburg, appointed to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton, said South Africa’s constitution is “a great piece of work that was done” and cited other documents outside America’s constitution that Egyptians should read.
“Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Ginsburg said. “It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“Yes,” she concluded, “why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/
Thoughts?
Thoughts?I love the blogosphere and the helicopter approach to history it enables.
Prairie dwellers trying to convince visitors those mole hills are mountains.
Richard :munchin
It's just not the Written Word - it's how you implement it.
We used to have a SC that looked at the Written Word. Now we have some that look to other's written word for inspiration.
Thoughts?
Sure I have thoughts. She should move to one of those places she is touting, since she is such a fan of their "constitutions".
Having not read either the Canadian or South African constitution I am left with the question, are the kebabs in Egypt better than the ones I had in Turkey...
kawaishi
02-12-2012, 13:56
In the interview, she argued that the United States has the “oldest written constitution still in force in the world,”
How can someone speak these words without the brief flicker of thought that it might be the most successful framing document ever written and hence the age?
Reminds me of someone else recently complaining about those pesky founding fathers and their ideas:rolleyes:
craigepo
02-12-2012, 14:06
IMHO, the reason that Ginsburg doesn't think that the US constitution protects individual rights to the extent she deems necessary is that she undervalues the Bill of Rights (which has been made a part of the Constitution via the Amendment process), especially the 10th Amendment. The Constitution lays out the specific powers of the government. The Bill of Rights prohibits the Federal government from infringing upon specific personal liberties. The 10th Amendment then holds that any power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people.
Constitutional law scholars don't like to talk about the 10th amendment, probably because there is not a lot of case law discussing this Amendment. When I read this Amendment, it seems to hold that the federal government has only the powers specifically granted to it. Big-government types don't like this idea. You can be the judge:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Badger52
02-13-2012, 08:27
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."Winner.
:cool:
Was perusing some selected Federalist Papers last night & ran across Hamilton's written during the argument over whether there ought to be a separately enumerated Bill of Rights (largely advocated by those who were stuck on the benchmarks of previous such listings found in history).
Concern as articulated in there by Hamilton was that, once enumerated separately (counter to the simply elegant concept of "if it ain't listed as a power of the Guv EVERYTHING else is reserved to the Folks and hands-off to the G") it would become fodder to be manipulated and generally mucked with in some way.
How'd that work out?
longrange1947
02-13-2012, 08:52
She is a liberal progressive that feels that the constitution should have given the gov't the right to redistribute wealth according to the axiom "from those according to ability to those according to need".
Heard that phrase somewhere before. :munchin
Both Canada and South Africa have that type of progressive think in their writings.
What ever happened to the thought, "Ask not what your country can do for you, rather what you can do for your country."?
Just wondering, and it is not a mountain out of a mole hill, it is a clear progressive thought process that she uses in here decision making on the SCOTUS.
Anybody see the interview or just read the opinion piece? :confused:
I seriously doubt Justice Ginsburg was saying to ignore the US Constitution as the writer implies, but that somebody like Egypt or Libya or Sudan or whoever should not use it as their sole template but also consider those newer constitutional documents which are more finite in their enumerated powers and freedoms, which were influenced so strongly by the US Constitution, which are written in modern language and more reflective of generally accepted modern cultural norms, and which, for the most part, have come about after WW2 and under our influence.
IOW - IMO...meh...
Richard :munchin
Anybody see the interview or just read the opinion piece? :confused:......Richard :munchin
Richard the clip at the link is less than four minutes long. Yes there are some fade out & ins during the interview but the segments of her talking are long and unedited.
Yeah, she said it - and watching the clip I had a couple more WTF did she just say moments.
Funny quote from another source:
"Hell, why not let them use our Constitution, the current administration isn't using it."
GratefulCitizen
02-13-2012, 13:32
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams
Peregrino
02-14-2012, 20:06
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams
Given that our (collective) morality and religiosity has degraded somewhat from the ideals advocated/expected by John Adams, is it still adequate to govern us?
(My contention - any social compact is only as credible as the character of its adherents - and only as enforceable as the effort the body politic is willing to expend to force compliance [usually manifested as the blunt application of brute force]. YMMV)
From a historiographical perspective, Ginsburg's comments provide food for thought. Long before contemporary political and legal debates over original meanings and intent, our forebearers struggled mightily--and not always successfully--with the contested meanings of the constitution. The proper division of power between the federal state and the individual states was but one such issue.
Thanks to the lack of power among other nations inhabiting North America, some of the bigger issues were deferred (and a few defused) by our expansion "from sea to shining sea." Thanks to our nation's relative geographic isolation, many of these issues were worked out (for worse and for better) without Americans needing to worry too badly about how the powers of the world might exploit the uncertainty to their advantage. Thanks to the built in limitations of military technology prior to the turn of to previous century, armed conflict over key constitutional issues was not as destructive as many combatants wished.
Do any of these factors presently apply to any African country looking to write a constitution that establishes a system of government centered around the rights of individuals and the rule of law?
Incidentally, the text of the RSA's constitution and its amendments are available here (http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/), its bill of rights is here (http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm), and a brief history of that document is available there (http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/theconstitution/history.htm). Here's an interesting excerpt from the latter link.The Atlantic Charter, which Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill sign in 1941, lays the basis for a bill of rights in South Africa. In 1943 the ANC's first attempt at such a document, African Claims, is [modeled] on this charter[.]
For the sake of readers' convenience, here's a link to the Atlantic Charter <<LINK (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp)>>. From the charter's introductory paragraphs.The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.
In short, long before the formal process of drafting the RSA's constitution began, it was already informed by the basic tenets of American political philosophy.
GratefulCitizen
02-14-2012, 22:21
Given that our (collective) morality and religiosity has degraded somewhat from the ideals advocated/expected by John Adams, is it still adequate to govern us?
(My contention - any social compact is only as credible as the character of its adherents - and only as enforceable as the effort the body politic is willing to expend to force compliance [usually manifested as the blunt application of brute force]. YMMV)
Concerning the degredation of which you speak, the consequences thereof, and the adequacy of the Constitution: few addressed it better than Benjamin Franklin did on September 17, 1787.
http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html
Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
Dozer523
02-15-2012, 09:15
How can someone speak these words without the brief flicker of thought that it might be the most successful framing document ever written and hence the age? Reminds me of someone else recently complaining about those pesky founding fathers and their ideas:rolleyes: Brief flicker of thought? Try reading a few of her opinions, especially in disent.
"Her comments have stunned writers across the conservative blogosphere" I'll bet that just made her cry.
Justice Ginsberg's confirmation hearings were amazing because, dispite her past liberal reputation and rulings, she was evaluated on the quality of her decisions not whether those decisions were popular with the opinionated.
Won't see that again anytime soon. :(
From the South Africian Constitution
Preamble
We, the people of South Africa,
Recognise the injustices of our past;
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to *Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law; Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.
May God protect our people.
The rest is here: http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/