Happy Fourth of July!

When a judge provides new meaning to the words of the Constitution, after over 200 years of case law, particularly without scientific evidence the ways of the past were wrong, that is legislating from the bench to me.

So Courts have no authority to decide that previous Courts were wrong under the law and under the Constitution, and to rule accordingly in a more current case? The Constitution does not say that stare decisis must always prevail.

The courts also have a standard they are to measure law to. That does not give them any authority to write or rewrite law.

What is that "standard"? Where do we find it? The Constitution says that the Courts are the deciders of questions of the law and of the Constitution that are brought to the Courts.

As usual you compare apples to oranges. The law states that if one plans the murder of another it is murder in the first.

But that is an all too easily murky definition. If I "plan" that if someone breaks into my house and threatens me or my family with imminent bodily harm that I will shoot him dead, is that a "planned" homicide that qualifies as murder? I doubt that a jury would agree that it qualifies as murder- but rather as self-defense even though I "planned" it years ahead of time and kept a loaded gun handy just for that purpose. The real world is just not as black and white as your absolute morality and your version of "objective" law would demand.

All I can say is you need to do some research without your blinders on. By the way you define the ninth amendment and the so called right to privacy, there would be no law and no protections. For example, if int he privacy of my home I killed my elderly parents, because they had become a burden to me, it would be legal.

No, not according to the 4 Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So if the authorities believe and can convince the Court that there is probable cause for the police to believe that you or I killed our erderly parents, a warrant can be issued to allow an invasion of our privacy (our otherwise secure persons, houses, papers, and effects) for a search to look for specific evidence. But our right to privacy is such that police cannot go on a fishing expedition into our persons, houses, papers, and effects without some probable cause to suspect that we have committed a crime.

ziggy wrote:

When a judge provides new meaning to the words of the Constitution, after over 200 years of case law, particularly without scientific evidence the ways of the past were wrong, that is legislating from the bench to me.

So Courts have no authority to decide that previous Courts were wrong under the law and under the Constitution, and to rule accordingly in a more current case? The Constitution does not say that stare decisis must always prevail.

The Constitution says what it says. It clearly explains under what circumstances the government can seize private property and selling to so others can get rich off it is not on the list.

The document clearly lays out how to make a change, should one be required. It says what it says.

The Constitution says what it says. It clearly explains under what circumstances the government can seize private property and selling to so others can get rich off it is not on the list.

No, it is not clear at all on that. It tells how private property may taken for a "public purpose". But it does not define a "public purpose". And it is what constitutes a "public purpose" that was at the heart of Kelo v. City of New London. The Court said that private economic development makes for a "public purpose".

While I do not like how the Court ruled in Kelo, I do wonder if private economic development does not serve a public purpose, then why we put so much social emphasis on encouraging economic development in the private sector.

And it is because the Founders knew that questions about the law and the Constitution would arise that they determined that the Courts were the entity to decide those questions.

ziggy wrote:And it is because the Founders knew that questions about the law and the Constitution would arise that they determined that the Courts were the entity to decide those questions.

The courts were not set up to reinterpret COTUS for political expediency. There is a mechanism to change the Constitution clearly explained in it. It has been many times.

ziggy wrote:

The Constitution says what it says. It clearly explains under what circumstances the government can seize private property and selling to so others can get rich off it is not on the list.

No, it is not clear at all on that. It tells how private property may taken for a "public purpose". But it does not define a "public purpose". And it is what constitutes a "public purpose" that was at the heart of Kelo v. City of New London. The Court said that private economic development makes for a "public purpose".

While I do not like how the Court ruled in Kelo, I do wonder if private economic development does not serve a public purpose, then why we put so much social emphasis on encouraging economic development in the private sector.

Private economic development is not public purpose. That is legislating from the bench, in my opinion. Obviously, it is not in yours. It is in mine.

ziggy wrote: No, it is not clear at all on that. It tells how private property may taken for a "public purpose". But it does not define a "public purpose". And it is what constitutes a "public purpose" that was at the heart of Kelo v. City of New London. The Court said that private economic development makes for a "public purpose".

GIVE US A BREAK, Ziggy, you are, as usual, guilty of "Ruling from the sidelines".

A typical lefty liberal Socialist "wealth distributing" act of ........ applying 21st Century meanings and definitions to 18th Century Rules of Law.

The "Right to bear arms" and the "Commerce Clause" have been bastardized by every lefty liberal Socialist "wealth distributing" fruitcake that opens his/her mouth on the subjects, moreso and oftener than any other text or wording in the COTUS or the BoR.

GEEZUS, those nuts will even apply the Commerce Clause to finding someone "GUILTY of screwing their neighbor" ...... on grounds that the condom that was used was "shipped in from out of state via a public highway".

SamCogar wrote:GIVE US A BREAK, Ziggy, you are, as usual, guilty of "Ruling from the sidelines".

A typical lefty liberal Socialist "wealth distributing" act of ........ applying 21st Century meanings and definitions to 18th Century Rules of Law.

Ok then. You tell us what is meant, constitutionally, by "public purpose".

GEEZUS, those nuts will even apply the Commerce Clause to finding someone "GUILTY of screwing their neighbor" ...... on grounds that the condom that was used was "shipped in from out of state via a public highway".

Well, I had not heard that one before. How clever of you to think it up!