Judge Ginsburg on Egypt's constitution

BOfH · 02-11-2012, 23:00

She may have a point, but it is still quite disconcerting to hear this from a sitting SCOTUS judge...

Quote:

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/ju...-while-abroad/

Thoughts?

Sigaba · 02-12-2012, 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOfH

Thoughts?

I love the blogosphere and the helicopter approach to history it enables.

Richard · 02-12-2012, 06:34

Prairie dwellers trying to convince visitors those mole hills are mountains.

Richard

**Pete** · 02-12-2012, 06:51

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.

Gypsy · 02-12-2012, 09:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOfH

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".

akv · 02-12-2012, 11:22

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOfH

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigepo

"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.

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.

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.

Richard · 02-13-2012, 09:19

Anybody see the interview or just read the opinion piece?

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

**Pete** · 02-13-2012, 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Anybody see the interview or just read the opinion piece?

......Richard

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.

CSB · 02-13-2012, 09:45

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

“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)