- http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4448191n&tag=related;photovideo
- http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4448193n
Since we have referenced this in class, you should be well aware by now that Justice Breyer is one of the reliable liberals on the court, advocating a philosophy of Judicial Activism, while Scalia is very much a conservative justice, the epitome of Originalism or Strict Constructionism. As you watch these interviews and have these two very contrasting interpretations of the Constitution and the role of judges explained for you, please consider the following questions:
- In general, do you find yourself agreeing more with Breyer's (and Ginsburg's) assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution, or with Wallace's (and Scalia's) notion that we should go by the exact wording of our Constitution? Why? How does this connect with our discussion in class about the different types of judicial interpretation and ideology?
- Do you agree with Breyer's explanation of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you more agree with the interpretations of the Supreme Court (against which Breyer dissented) that led to handgun bans being overturned in the past year or two? Why?
- Do you agree with Scalia's explanation of the flag-burning issue? Do you believe that the 1st Amendment protects the right to burn an American flag and that, as Scalia says, "it was not up to [him]?" Or do you feel that the Court should have stepped in and prohibited flag-burning?
- Please feel free to elaborate on any other thoughts, opinions, comments or reactions you had to these two interviews, these two Justices, or these two contrasting judicial philosophies.
Remember, you need to post TWO (2) comments to the blog. The first post should be your responses to these questions after you watch the videos, and the second post should be a response to something posted by one of your classmates. Both comments need to be posted by the end of the day on Monday, April 4th. Good luck--I look forward to reading your comments!
I agree with different aspects and facets of both, but I think overall I would agree most with justice Breyer and justice ginsburg's judiciary interpretation. Incredible technologies have been invented, which are powerful in distributing information, or in military operations. The originals framers of the constitution could have no idea the logistical formalities and regulations of modern issues concerning guns, privacy, or other cases. The best the Supreme Court can do is to protect the original natural rights that America was founded on.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with justice Breyer. The usage and capability of modern firearms have greatly changed from that of the 1700s; however the original framers of the constitution did write the second amendment to ensure that Americans had the right to bear weapons to protect themselves, their families, and their country. And the modern ban does not protect that original view.
I don't see flag burning as a legitimate issue of the Supreme Court. The court should be much more concerned with what issues has convinced citizens that they have been so wronged that they feel it is appropriate to burn the flag. It is not an issue worthy enough to throw someone in jail, or have a ruling on it. It is offensive to some, it is true to some, but this is america and we are protected by the first amendment to do stuff like that.
In general, I would have to agree with Breyer and Ginsburg’s interpretation of the Constitution where, I guess you could say, “shadows” occur. I definitely do not think you should go right with the wording of the Constitution for many reasons. First of all, it was written during a time that doesn’t have issues of modern government. The framers did not know what gun problems, privacy problems, or other issues would occur. There are many issues that can be related to certain clauses and amendments but not every single problem will be specifically in black and white in the Constitution. By going with the exact wording of the Constitution, there would be many limitations for government as well as the judges to make laws. This relates to what we were talking about in class about different interpretations and ideology because there are many different views on the Constitution. Obviously, Wallace and Scalia, are strict constructionists because they follow word by word of the Constitution, where as Breyer and Ginsburg are the opposite because they look at the Constitution with “shadows”.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with Breyer’s interpretation of the second amendment. I agree with him because he brings up good points about how it shouldn’t be banned because people like shooting as a sport but if need be, they could travel to meet those needs if banning was acted upon. But the second amendment was written for people to bare arms to protect themselves, others, and their country. That is what the framers wanted as well, to protect it’s people by allowing them to protect themselves against harmful people or situations.
The flag burning issue many people could go different ways. Personally, I am against it but the first amendment does show that the act is allowed. To some people if is saying “America sucks!” and people take that as offensive and I personally do because my dad was in the military and he fought to keep us free. But, with people being against it, the first amendment allows for freedom of speech, which some believe burning the flag as a way to express how they feel. The court should definitely not get involved in this issue because they have to deal with more important issues, like terrorism. If the court was to get involved, then it would be a waste of time for the justices and the person who committed the crime because it is just an expression of how one feels, and shouldn't be a Supreme Court issue.
I would agree more with Justice Breyer in his ideas that we should be guided by the values implied in the Constiution, rather than follow the exact wording of the Constiution. I agree with this, becuase back then, our founding fathers had no idea what the future would be like and how different technology, morals, and the economy of the country would be. In present day, we have technology the founding fathers never would have dreamed of. I agree with Breyer that they never considered what to do with the internet, and having a video on the internet about how to make a bomb, and how that should be taken care of becuase it is dangerous, even though it's someones right of free speech to post it. Scalia wants to strictly follow the Constiution, but to do that would bring our society back into the 1800s. We need to adapt and conform to our surroundings of today. As for the gun control issue, i agree again with Justice Breyer, when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment concerning the right to bear arms, they didnt have machine guns, atomic weapons, and torpedos. Back then yes, it was tolerable and safe for every man to bear arms, no one was in the environment we are today with the level of crime we are in. Today we have much more lethal weapons that do need to be handled and restrcited. I think the Supreme Court needs to wake up and think about the good for today, and that the fathers idea of bearing arms then was for pure protection, and compared to today those ideas would not be what the founding fathers meant for the country. I dont think the fathers now a days would want everyone to bear arms, it was a different time period with different values, today is extremely different than the colonial days. We need to live and work for today not what was in our history, yes consider our history and use the Constiution as our moral guidebook, but equivocate the rules applied then to standards of today.
ReplyDeleteAs for the flag burning, I agree with Scalia that yes the people were wrong for burning the flag, that is a inslut to our country, but what can he do about their actions. There is no real statement in the first amendment saying no one can burn a flag. It only says of our freedom of speech, so in that case people are aloud to burn an American flag if they want to. Is it wrong? Yes of course it is, but it is not in anyone's authority or place to tell others what is right or wrong when it comes to their opionons.
In general, I agree with Breyer ‘s ideas of judicial activism because, as stated, everything from society to technology has come a long way since the constitution was written. To keep up with the rapid changes, we must interpret the constitution loosely but still abide by the overall guidelines. Madison and Hamilton are referenced because they wrote the constitution not even having a clue of what would happen in the future. Breyer also states that we don’t even really know for sure what the framers would have thought about internet, gun control, etc. But, it is the main job to protect the underlying values of the Constitution and guarantee natural rights. Scalia is a strict constructionist, interpreting the constitution word for word. However, this seems to me like a poor approach when our country has come such a long way.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree as much with Breyer’s explanation of the Second Amendment. When the second amendment was put into place, it was to help people protect natural rights during times of war and chaos. Again, our technology has come so far to the point where we now have machine guns, torpedoes, and easily attainable guns that cause much harm. When times are hard and crime levels are high, I think that gun control is necessary and I disagree with Breyer. I do, however, realize that this is a large argument because the second amendment clearly states “the right to bear arms” but it does not specifically state what “arms” are.
I agree with Scalia in that the Constitution does protect the right to burn an American flag. Although it seems horrendous to do such a thing, I think that it cannot be prevented because of the first amendment. If the flag burning issue were declared illegal, this could be used as a precedent for many other future cases relating to the First Amendment. Therefore, it is best to stick with the Constitution on this issue and allow flag burning. I find myself rotating between judicial activism and strict constructionist ideas, depending on the issue.
I agree more with Justices Breyer and Ginsburg in that we should be guided by the Constitution instead of blindly following it. I feel this way because there is no way in which we can understand what the Founders wished for our country when they were writing the Constitution and because people change their views over time as society changes, that's how progress is made, a period of one trend followed by a period in which the trend is completely different.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Amendment was set up to protect people. I believe that this is still valid today, however it should be done through the legal process. Registering properly, practicing safe use and so on. A person who simply goes out and purchases a gun from the street should not be protected under the Constitution.
I fully agree with Scalia on this issue. I view flag-burning as a form of protest. I do not believe that someone should go out and burn a flag, that's a little extreme, but it is protesting none the less, and the people are granted the freedom of protest in the First Amendment. If a situation arises in which this Amendment needs to be changed then like Scalia said, there should be a law made to do so.
I agreee with Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, we should be guided by the Constitution instead of blindly following, what most people do. There is no absolute way to understand what the Founders had in mind for the contry because during their time society was different and now it has evolved.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Amendment is there to protect the people like all the other amendments. It is still very valid today but it just takes registration and safe practical use.
Burning flag is whatever really its freedom of speech. I agree with Scalia on the issue. As long as measures dont get extreme where they hurt people it is all protected under the first amendment.
I am inclined to agree heavily with Ginsburg and Breyer's idea that we should be guided by the Constitution instead of simpily following it. I think it is incredibly unintelligent to follow the Constitution word for word as Scalia would have us do. As it was shown in the Westwing episode we recently watched, there is no law saying I can put sugar in my coffee yet it is considered a gaurenteed right that I can do this anyways. To follow the Constitution word for word, is to say that the Constitution has predicted every senario that could possibly happen in terms of law for the rest of time. Obviously, this hasn't happened because the Constitution was written in the late 1700's when thing like abortion and Facebook privacy hadn't even been thought of yet.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I support Breyer's ideas on how to interpret the Constitution, I do not agree with his ideas on the second amendment. According to the second amendment of the Constitution, I have the right to bear arms without any fear of that right being hindered by laws passed by the government.Although I do feel that certain arms-- assult rifles, heavy machine guns, etc-- should not be in the possession of the common citizen, according to this section of the Constitution, the government can't impede on this right. However, a new amendment could be brought up ban certain weapons. As for Scalia's opinion on flag burning, I am inclined to disagree with him. Flag burning in my opinion is not free speach as their is no speach neccesary to strike a match and set something on fire. In my opinion, the first amendment protects all speach such as the press and the everyday discussions of Americans. What it doesn't protect in my opinion is actions which flag burning is.
ReplyDeleteCLOE MOCTEZUMA
ReplyDeleteI find myself inclined to agree that the Constitution should be interpretted for it's core values and not stictly taken for it's exact words. I thought that Justice Breyer had the right idea when he pointed out that the Framers couldn't possibly concieve of having to handle privacy in terms of the internet, or even television. To hold a position of such tenacity, as Scalia does, on clinging to just words, in my opinion, is truly unprogressive. Although I'm not a fan of the leniant gun control we have in our country, I understand Breyer's judicial opinion of why the government must allow firearms to citizens. At the same time, I also feel that since the country has expanded and evolved, it was also impossible for the Framers to imagine that things like drugs, modern illnesses, and simply pure unsolicited insanity and hate could drive individuals to use guns for reasons other than self-defense. I also think that the Framers could not possibly forsee the technological advancement in the firearms industry, such as the development of the machine gun, and so the Second Amendment should be reviewed. In regards to the flag-burning ruling, I think that it's perfectly acceptable for an individual, under the First Amendment, to burn anything he darn well pleases. (With the exception of dangerous chemicals that could harm others, and other things of the sort.) I agree with Scalia because I don't think that just because someone burns a flag it means that they are going to try and do damage to the country. There are many reasons to burn a flag other than hate for one's country. (I don't know, maybe for a play, to make a statement, etc.?) But there is absolutely, under the First Amendment, protection of an individual's right to freedom of expression and burning the United States flag is a method of self expression.
CLOE MOCTEZUMA
ReplyDeleteIn response to Angelo's comment:
I definitely agree with his view that our country has evolved greatly and, therefore, we cannot interpret the Constitution word for word. We need to take the values from the Constitution and adapt them to our modern society in regards to judicial interpretation of the document. However, I differ from him on the view of the Second Amendment. Yes, I'm grateful that gun registration is required, but like privacy issues, I think that so much has changed in regards to firearm advancement, that we must also reexamine the Second Amendment because, there too, lies the value of self-defense, but not of attack. I also agree with his take on Scalia and flag-burning. It is a freedom of expression and should not be tampered with. No freedom of expression should be infringed on unless it causes harm to other individuals.
I agree with Braydon's comment on how the second amendment should have some legal actions put forward to protect the rights of people to bear arms. I like that he said that if someone out on the street went to buy a gun pretty much in the black market then they shouldn't be protected. I agree with that and how people who want to own guns go through the legal process to make sure it is safe and registered properly.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I don't agree with Hankyt's comment on how citizens shouldn't have the right to own assault riffles or heavy machine guns, etc, because as long as they go through a legal process making sure it is registered and safe then they should be allowed to own any gun they want.
I found both sides very interesting but I agree more with Breyer's view of the Constitution. He constantly brings up the values he believes are outlined in our Constitution and he discusses the idea that things can be interpreted; the laws are still being followed. I strongly agree that this is how the Constitution should be viewed and that the world is ever changing; it only makes sense to adapt the Constitution to the way the world is today, even if certain ideas weren't discussed 200 years ago. With so many differing opinions, I think that a looser view is more suitable. The ideas we discussed in class on judicial interpretation are highly related in that we have now seen two strong opinions of members of the court; a very liberal view and a very conservative view. I agree with Breyer's view on the second amendment concerning handguns because I think he was inferring that Americans today don't always use guns in a "controlled" manner, where the amendment states that they should be used in a "controlled militia." Today, nearly anyone can acquire a handgun, and you can bet they won't always use it in a controlled environment. I also agree with Scalia's ruling the flag-burning issue because the Court's job is not to intervene and prevent those kinds of activities, but to judge the actions and deem them constitutional or not. I think that flag-burning is protected by the first amendment, even though I think it's disrespectful to do.
ReplyDeleteBreyer's interpretation of the constitution fits very well with my own. A long time has passed since the early days of the framers. Though many of their notions still apply today, the world has changed a lot. As time progresses, the laws that govern society must adapt to the changes in society. Therefore interpretation of the constitution should not be based on exactly what it says, but rather what is best for the wellbeing of the nation. Scalia's strict, origionalist interpretation makes it much harder to accommodate the many changes.
ReplyDeleteOne of the many ways society has changed can be seen in the issues revolving around the second ammendment. The "right to bear arms" may have been strictly for protection for in the eyes of framers. However technology has advanced firearms to a point where they are much more deadly than they were when the constitution was drafted. Because of this, I believe there is strong support for handgun bans.
In response to Hank's comment, i think Breyer does have a critical point in not supporting the second ammendment. Yes, the Constitution says every man is given the right to bear arms and protect himself. But weapons like machine guns, missles, and assult rifles are not made for protection, those are pure offensive weapons, made for mass or multiple intentionall killings, not protecting yourself. We are not living in the 1700s, we need to adapt and evolve our nation and civilization to standards and levels now, other wise we will always be stuck int he past. Technology has increased and will only get better, rather than having all these destructive weapons open for the public is waiting for people to get hurt. At least to stay true to the moral issue of this amendment, we shouldnt restrict all gun rights, but restrict the major assult weapons, and other destructive weapons made for war and not every day house protection.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I respect both arguments, I agree more with Justice Breyer than with Justice Scalia. I am more of a judicial activist, because I believe that our society is very different than it was when the Constitution was written, and that the way the core values of the Constitution are upheld must change as well or else they run the risk of becoming obsolete. I think it is the job of the Court to decide whether or not policies uphold the values of the Constitution with respect to today's world. As for the issue of gun control, I am not exactly sure which side I fall on. In Justice Breyer's interview he said that Madison only added the Second Amendment to ensure that the state militias wouldn't be nationalized, which means that the Amendment was not really added to uphold the values of America but to protect Madison's own interests. However, I do not know if this is the whole truth or if there were better reasons for adding this Amendment, like giving Americans the ability to protect themselves and their property. However, I think that at the very least gun ownership should be more regulated, because, while I don't want people to be defenseless, I also think that it shouldn't be so easy for dangerous weapons to fall into the wrong hands. I do agree with Justice Scalia on the issue of flag burning, because it is a form of freedom of expression and is protected by the First Amendment. Of course I think it is a terrible thing and that people shouldn't do it, but just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I can ignore the First Amendment. What I just don't understand is, if you hate America so much that you want to burn the flag, then why are you even living here? It's a lot like the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, who went around protesting soldiers' funerals. They won the lawsuit against them because, even though they said horrible things, they are protected by the First Amendment. They didn't win because the majority of people agree with what they do but because people are guaranteed the right to express themselves freely.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Scalia’s point of view is hard to argue with, I do agree more with Justice Breyer’s and Justice Ginsburg’s opinion that legal activism is a justice’s job as opposed to conservatism. While I was watching both of these interviews it was hard to not agree with the opinion of the justice getting interviewed while I was listening to what they had to say because they all had extremely compelling arguments. Perhaps it is just because I watched Justice Breyer’s interview first, but I do think that his argument for judicial activism was better. When the authors of the constitution were composing the document, they had no knowledge of the internet, nuclear weapons, cars, airplanes or anything of that nature so there is no way that one can look at the words they used in this document written hundreds of years ago and apply the words literally to the problems we have due to things that did not exist back then. It was also very influential to my opinion when I heard Justice Ginsburg talk about the constitution’s preamble when it begins with “we the people”. This excerpt from the constitution only refers to white males. It does not include African Americans, women, or many of the other demographic types that we have an abundance of now which makes it clear that the constitution must be interpreted differently for different situations. The framers did not use many specific words when writing our rights such as arms because they wanted future government leaders to be able to interpret the law differently depending on the situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer’s interpretation of the second amendment because the writers of the constitution knew that at some point in the future people would try to keep people from being able to own guns. It is everyone’s right to own a gun if they feel they need to protect themselves, their family, or their country.
I personally hated watching the flag burning because it just looks to me like Americans are saying they hate their country even though they are only able to do this because of their freedom of speech. I do not think the court needs to get involved in this issue because it is clearly stated in the first amendment that we all have the freedom of speech and if the court got involved in this one and infringed on our freedom of speech it could cause a domino effect with the court later infringing on more of our rights in the constitution.
I agree with Emily’s comment in that a looser view is more suitable in our current world. It was good to listen to opinions from a very conservative and very liberal point of view so that the distinctions between each viewpoint were obvious.
ReplyDeleteAlso, many people do not use handguns in a controlled manner, so we must not let gun ownership get out of control and cause harm. I agree with Hank when he stated that common citizens should not be able to possess machine guns and assault rifles, and perhaps a ban on certain guns would be best.
I basically agree with Braydon on the gun control issue, in that I think that it should be regulated and safety should be emphasized.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that Helen brought up a very interesting point about the flag burning issue. She said that the Supreme Court should be more concerned about why people are burning flags, rather than the actual fact that they are burning a flag. I agree that the "why" is usually much more important than the "what".
I agree more with Justices Ginsberg and Breyer more so than with Justices Wallace’s and Scalia. I feel that the assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in the Constitution is correct. I agreed with Breyer’s statement that times have changed and the founding fathers wouldn’t have contemplated all these future issues and that there was no way they could foresee the internet or television. Breyer made a good point about preserving the values the constitution holds like liberty and judges have to deal with the issues as they see constitutionally fit now and not how it was written word for word.
ReplyDeleteNow I believe his interpretation of the second amendment isn’t completely correct, however, there needs to be gun control and regulation around the country for the safety of the people. As for the flag burning issue, I agree with Scalia because the government shouldn’t just step in and stop someone from burning a flag because of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment of freedom of speech.
•I find myself agreeing more with Breyer’s (and Ginsburg’s) notion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution because there are such huge changes in our country in all different aspects of our lives that the Framers couldn’t possibly see fore coming. Breyer had a handy dandy copy of the Constitution with him and for being a liberal judge that surprised me a little. His arguments about being a loose constructionist were right on and convincing. Scalia’s views, on the other hand were definitely strong, but for me, just a little too extreme in the sense that since something isn’t in the Constitution; it isn’t to be interpreted the same way. This clearly connects with our discussion in class about the different types of judicial interpretation and ideology because on one side we have Justice Breyer as a loose constructionist and on the other side we have Justice Scalia as an originalist social conservative.
ReplyDelete• I agree with Justice Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd Amendment because he sees the scale that this amendment can be interpreted. Such as, Handguns being torpedoes or weapons of mass destruction. He looks back at history and notes that the Framers wanted the right to bear arms for the American people to protect themselves, however there are other means and other places someone can go if need be. With this being said, I believe that there is always going to be a different opinion on the issue, which Breyer also mentions many times during his interview. Handgun bands being overturned constitute someone else’s interpretation of the Constitution and I agree with the fact that opinions change and people change and that is why the interpretation of the Constitution, according to Breyer, is forever changing, but the values remain the same.
• With this flag burning issue, it will always be controversial, and with that being said I agree with Scalia’s explanation of the flag burning issue in the position he is in. Of course I am not in support with flag burning, but he reasoning, such as people can propose a law or a bill to prohibit it, can always be initiated and even though the American public would most likely all agree with Scalia on that the person should be thrown in jail, it was that person’s moral belief and on the basis of free speech the Court could not have stepped in and prohibited the flag burning. This ties in with our discussions about the Westburo Baptist Church and their testimonies and rallies.
I think it’s nice that the Justices get along and can put aside their opinions on cases in an effort to become a more coherent court system for the American people. Watching Scalia’s interviews for me was very entertaining. He is a guy that is strong willed and should be respected, even if he is an extreme originalist.
In response to Cloe's response about Angelo's comment, I have to agree with her on the Second Amendment issue on gun control. I am thankful that there is restrictions on it because in my opinion, I don't think some people should be allowed the right to own handgun or any gun that isn't filled with water or paint. I can attest to the safety aspect of owning a gun, but other then that, or maybe shooting coca cola cans out in the mountatins for recreation (out of the harm of animals present) there is not a real need to own a hand gun. Yes, this is stream of conscious writing.
ReplyDeletethere are*
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Justice Breyer had to say about following values set by the Constitution, rather than following a strict guideline set by the exact wording of the Constitution. I believe that values rather than wording of the Constitution should be followed because the values and views of America change with time, in the words of Justice Breyer, "...take those values which are in this document [The Constitution], which every Americans hold which do not change, and to apply them to a world that is ever changing." With this passing of time different views on topics such as abortion and same sex marriage begin to arise and take center stage in the life of politics and everyday life. The following of the exact wording of the Constitution is a following of it as black and white and no shades in between, while the following of values would view those shadings, just as Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg do.
ReplyDeleteI slightly agree with Justice Breyer's views on the the 2nd Amendment in terms of that the American people do have the right to have a firearm, although I do believe that firearms should be regulated in terms of what is being regulated. Small firearms and firearms of similar resemblance should not be regulated so as to allow for the American people to have a form of safety and protection against criminals and any other endangering situations, but rather larger, more lethal weaponry such as fully-automatic and explosive weaponry.
In terms of flag burning, I believe that flag burning is protected by the 1st Amendments right to free expression. Although many may disagree with what I say, I believe that the American people have a right to their own opinions and have the right to express those opinions however much we may not agree with those opinions. If the Court was to prohibit flag burning, it would be denying people their 1st Amendment right just because some people do not agree with their viewpoint. Although I believe that the American people should not have their right denied or infringed upon, I do believe that there should be limitations as to the what can be said during specific situations, such as saying 'fire' in a movie theater, or saying 'bomb' in an airport. Just as Justice Scalia says, "If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal wearing flag burner into jail, but it was not up to me." This shows how that even though Justice Scalia did not agree with flag burning, he did understand that the American people do have the right to free expression and that that right should be upheld.
I think that there is no one answer as to whether we should use judicial activism or strict constructionism when regarding the Constitution. With every case, different methods are going to be used to determine the final ruling. I believe that in situations when judges can look at the Constitution directly and no modern advancements have a major interference in the case, then the court should rule based off of strictly reading the wording. However, when modern advancements do interfere in the case, the court should do the best they can to stick to the framers original intents and take a more loose reading to the constitution. This issue refers to the ideologies we’ve been discussing in class by investigating specific examples of people who take different views on interpreting the constitution. Although it is hard for me to say what the right decision is on the issue of hand guns, I have to agree with the Supreme Court in that the second amendment protects the right to bare arms. Also, I have to agree that the first amendment protects the right for people to burn flags. Just because you may be against someone’s opinion doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a voice to express it. Why people who hate America chose to live here is beyond me but the Constitution protects their right of expression. Overall, I really can’t say there is one right answer on how to interpret the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Helen had to say about how the Court should look at 'why' people are burning the American flag as opposed to 'what' they are doing. If the Court was to respond to the issue that is motivating the American people to burn American flags, flag burning would not be an issue and would resolve itself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rickey in that we can’t directly apply word-for-word what the Framer’s wrote down in the Constitution over 200 years after it was written. The deep meaning of their words can still be applied and will always be able to be applied, but at the same time laws need to change to adapt with society. I liked what Rickey said about how Scalia’s originatlist interpretation makes it harder to make judicial decisions on topics that were not around when the document was written such as internet privacy and interstate commerce via airplanes and other unique modes of transportation. It also makes sense in Rickey’s opinion that the framers viewed the right to bear arms as a way for people to protect themselves and now that there are such extreme forms of arms that are very deadly and people are using them for things besides protection there does need to be some regulation.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Andrew in this argument. Although for me it’s really hard to determine who is right, I am leaning more towards Breyer’s and Ginsberg’s opinion that the constitution should be seen more loosely opposed to strict constructionism. Society isn’t the same as it was in the 1700’s and times will still always be changing. New advancements will be occurring and our laws and courts will have to keep up with that fact. I completely agree and think that Andrew brought up a good point when he referenced Ginsberg’s discussion of what “we the people” meant back then. This point only strengthens the argument that the court must always be modernizing. However, we should focus on what the framers did initially intended and base new decisions with their thoughts in mind. I still support the Supreme Court’s decision on overturning the ban of hand guns based on the second amendment. I also believe that burning flags is legal because of the first amendment. I think that what the framers wrote in the Constitution was absolutely right, but over time new additions that include issues such as gay marriage and abortion must be made with respect to the original framers ideas.
ReplyDeleteAlthough both the honorable Judge Breyer and Judge Scalia make solid arguments for Judicial activism and Originalism, I agree with Judge Breyer's assertion that the Constitution is a guide book more then a rule book. As the great Bob Dylan once sung, "the times they are a changin," and indeed they are. The times have greatly changed since the days of framing and they will continue to change every day. The framers had no knowledge of cars, planes, the internet, television, and other commonalities of society today. They did not know that the things they set out to fix would be changed so much over time. This is why the Constitution is better served as a guide book rather then a rule book.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Judge Breyer may be too liberal in his approach to the 2nd Amendment. I believe that safer and more efficient routes should be taken towards regulating the selling of arms, but I do not think that the right to bear arms should be infringed upon. I really don't think that the Framers had the idea of assault riffles and other deadly weapons in everyones homes. It's not like the 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms that will exterminate large groups of people. But, as said before, the owning and distribution of arms such as handguns should not be infringed upon as long as they are done so in a safe manner.
As much as this contradicts Judge Breyer's beliefs, I find myself agreeing with Judge Scalia that flag burning is protected under the 1st Amendment. I love the red, white, and blue as much as everyone else, if not more, but the right to free speech is a cornerstone of this country. It may not be a favorable practice and you may disagree with it till you die, much like the Westboro's protest of a military funeral, but it's a right given to you nonetheless.
I find myself agreeing with mostly everyone who has posted a comment so far. Other students have expressed my same views when it comes to modernization of the rules. Although they were looking in the best interest of our country, the framers, with no blame given, had no idea of what society would be like today. The framers were a group of white males, who excluded the use of black people in the Constitution and substituted it with "other people," when now we have an "other person" as our President. This should show that things were very different then as they are now. They had no idea of what arms would be like today. No longer do they take minutes to reload or luck to actually hit someone. Today, they have the capability to destroy a lot of people at one time, in a very short time. So I agree with other students in that times have changed and the Constitution almost has to serve as a guide book rather then a rule book.
ReplyDeleteI myself agree with Alex on his ideas about the second amendment and the flag burning issue, along with his argument of how Judge Breyer is too liberal in his explanation of the second amendment. Because it’s the right of the people to bear personal arms like handguns, which should be a right given to the citizens if they feel it protects them as long as they own a handgun in a safe and educated manner. Also as much as everyone may hate flag burning it is a right to protest no matter how much anyone disagrees with the idea of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dorian's stance on flag burning. Flag burning is generally looked down upon, but any action by the Supreme Court would have many resonating consequences. Scalia's interpretation of the constitution may allow flag burning (even though he has an opposite opinion) but also protects the first amendment. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of what kind of power does the Supreme Court have. It cannot be forgotten that the judicial system's main goal is to uphold the constitution, loosely or strictly.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I find myself agreeing more with Breyer's and Ginsburg's philosophy of judicial activism. I really don't see why government can't be an organic evolving entity.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't agree with Breyer's explanation of the second amendment. I believe that American's should have the right to bear arms because they have a right to defend themselves. This may not be why the amendment was originally written but as I said earlier I don't know why we have to stick to their intentions of the amendment when it was written. I believe it was first said on SNL but a firearm back in the 18th century isn't comparable to the weapons of today. That is why the constitution needs to be able to evolve with the present situations. Bad people will have guns whether they are legal or not so stripping good people of their guns only leaves them defenseless and is in violation of the constitution (No guns=not protecting the people).
I agree with Scalia's explanation on the flag burning issue. From a personal opinion standpoint I think that outlawing flag burning is just stupid. We're aloud to burn a flag with a smiley face on it but not an American flag? Are we forcing patriotism? I is disrespectful? Highly. Is it morally wrong? Yes. But what is worse is banning it.
What this really reminds me of is my religious philosophy. I don't think that we should be bound by the bibles of our religious but that we should live by the underlying principles that the texts illustrate-but since this country was founded on the idea of a separation between church and state I'll stop writing...
(Excuse my spelling and grammar errors please) :)
ReplyDeleteIn response to Stewie (Christina Stewart):
ReplyDeleteShe brought up something I forgot to talk about but enjoyed very much when I watched it. Breyer mentioned that he was in favor and respectful of other peoples opinions. I think that this is so important when dealing with any type of argument or controversial topic. One of the things that I am really turned off by in people is when they don't understand that it's okay to be wrong. Scalia turned me off to his opinions immediately when he expressed that he was this type of person. The manner in which he referred to the opinions of others was not considerate and made him look bad.
I found myself leaning more towards Breyer and Ginsburgs view of interpreting the Constitution. I think that I feel this way because Breyer had some valid points that when the Constitution was being made they didn't know what was going to come up in the future. We now have phones, 3d, internet and some many other things that our forefathers could never have predicted. I think that's why its necessary that we try to stick to the constituion as close as we can but we should interpret it if we need to. In class we were talking about the different ways that people interpret the Constitution, strict (Scalia) and loose (Breyer), and the way they view the Constitution influences how they interpret it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Breyer was wrong in this case regarding his view on the 2nd amendment. The Constitution says that we have the right to have arms and I don't think that has really changed. I think if the person was a convicted felon, or if they had some other problem, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun then. Or maybe implement rules that they have to pass a gun safety/shooting course before they can own one. That way, only people who want them for sport or protection will have them, versus people who want them to go shoot a school. I think that by implementing rules you could find a compromise.
Although I disagree with the flag-burning issue I agree that they were protected with the freedom of expression to do so. I think that after this was tried and they found it legal, but distasteful, they could make a law making it illegal. But I agreed with Scalia's opinion that it was legal to burn the flag, just like it is legal for the Westboro Baptist Church to rally, even though I don't agree with it.
And this is just something that I picked up will watching the first video with Breyer, that I didn't agree with Obama calling out the judges. I think that that was distasteful, petty, and rude. Especially since they are not allowed to show any emotion regarding the fact that all the Democrats crowded behind them and cheered about how the Judges had done a bad job. I really disagreed with that and found it unneccessary and really, bad leadership from our President.
I think that although we are all talking about how we agree with Breyer and that the Constitution should be flexibly viewed, we haven't really talked about how we haven't really had to change much regarding the Constitution. It seems that when the framers created it they thought ahead and really thought of a society that would be modernized (well, not with women equality and African Americans as equal) but we haven't really had that much trouble with our Constitution. That's why, although I agree with Alex and think that sometimes the Constitution should be viewed as a guidebook, other times it should be viewed as what it is, our laws. I think we should have trust in what we have based our society on, and have trust in our forefathers judgement.
ReplyDeleteBefore I watched these two videos, I more or less agreed with Breyer's philosophy of judicial activism. I felt that even the Founding Fathers wouldn't have believed that the Constitution, written so many years ago, would be word-for-word applicable to our world today. Therefore, at the beginning of Breyer's interview, I agreed with his statement that "The Court should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to every-changing circumstances." However, as his interview continued, I came to realize that his reasoning and explanations weren't very strong at all. When Chris Wallace asked Breyer's opinion/interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I can't recall if he really answered the question at all. At one point, he responded to Chris Wallace that if he wanted to shoot game, he could go to Maryland. This seemed quite off topic, and I found it difficult to keep up with his logic.
ReplyDeleteJustice Scalia, however, made much stronger, more confident arguments. Despite his controversial views and comments, I felt that he made strong points about originalism. He believes in protecting and upholding and "enduring Constitution" and that laws should change so that we can "progress democratically". Whereas Breyer stated that values are constant, Scalia argued the opposite and that laws should change as values change. Furthermore, I agree with Scalia's interpretation of the flag-burning issue. I don't believe it was "up to him", because his job is to uphold the Constitution. I strongly agreed with his opinion to keep his personal moral opinion separate from what is Constitutionally right and wrong.
After watching both videos, I came to the conclusion that it is suitable for judges to interpret the Constitution when it comes to gray areas (such as Ginsburg's take on the right to abortion), however, I do not feel it is right for judges to flat out go against what is promised in the Constitution (such as making flag burning illegal). All in all, I think that it's good that there's such strong opinions on both sides to keep the system balanced.
I agree with what Brianne said about strict vs. loosing interpretation of the Constitution with regards to cases that have strong or weak connections to modern advancements. I think that the balance between the two opinions and the application of them in different cases keeps the judicial system balanced and progressive. The difference of opinions acts almost like the judicial branch's own internal check and balance.
ReplyDeleteI agree more strongly with Justice Breyer and Ginsburg's views of the constitution as more of a living document. I feel that the constitution should evolve with the country which it governs. Like when Breyer asked how we apply freedom of speech to modern ways of expression, such as the internet and television programs. When the framers originally wrote the freedom of speech into the Constitution, they did not have any idea about the technological advancements we would have now, so I don't see how we can govern our current country easily on a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAs for Breyer's view on the interpretation of the second amendment, i agree with him in that he realizes that the framers had originally put that amendment in the constitution so the people could protect themselves and their families, but now the right to bear arms should be regulated and controlled more closely than it was before.
I would say I do agree with Justice Scalia on the issue of flag burning. I do not support it in any way, but it is a form of protest and expression. That freedom of speech protects the individual's right to protest how they choose. Like I said though, I do not agree with that form of protest at all, because i feel it is very disrespectful to our country.
I agree whole heartedly with Alex Bookout's comment about flag burning:
ReplyDelete"It may not be a favorable practice and you may disagree with it till you die, much like the Westboro's protest of a military funeral, but it's a right given to you nonetheless."
As much as we may not like the methods which people use their freedom of speech, it is a right given to them and protected by the U.S. government and I feel that is something we have to come to terms with, despite whether we agree with it or not.
I have to say, with the utmost surprise, I found myself agreeing more with Justice Scalia. I especially agreed with what he had to say about creating rights that are not referred to in the Constitution, that it should not be up to the justices on the Supreme Court to create those rights, but instead fall to Congress to employ laws that will protect these new rights. He gave a great example of this mindset when he talked about abortion, he argued that although the issue is very controversial, it does not appear anywhere in the Constitution and therefore is not up to the Supreme Court to decide. I thought Justice Breyer’s argument was very eloquent (and I favored his temperament over Scalia’s), I even agreed with his reasoning that the Framer’s had no way of forming a Constitution that was completely applicable to our modern society. However, the duty of the Supreme Court is to deal with what is in the Constitution, and it is the duty of Congress to deal with matters that fall into the gray area.
ReplyDeleteIn accordance with my previous opinion, I have to disagree with Justice Breyer on his handgun ruling. Again, it is not up to the Justices to pick and choose which Constitutional rights they will enforce and which they will not, it is their responsibility to uphold them all. I agree with Justice Scalia in his argument when it came to the flag burning issue, because it was clearly stated in the Constitution that freedom of expression is a right.
I really liked what Helen had to say about the flag burning issue. That we should be less concerned with the issue itself and more "with what issues has convinced citizens that they have been so wronged that they feel it is appropriate to burn the flag." I think that when something like this happens its easy to write off the perpetrator as a radical or something instead of looking at the fundamentals of it. I know it doesn't have much to do with Judicial Activism or Orginialism, but I thought it was a really interesting point.
ReplyDeleteI think I find myself agreeing more with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution instead of Wallace’s notion that we should go by the exact wording of our constitution. Although both sides made very good arguments, it just seems more logical to use the constitution as a basic outline where judges/officials/etc. can interpret how laws should be applied based on the situation. Times are changing, and things are definitely not how the founding fathers could have possibly imagined them to be; life is no where near to what it used to be back then, and in the future it will just diverge away from what is was even more. Therefore I think that following a document word by word that was written over 200 years ago would not work. In class we learned about two ways that the constitution can be interpreted; Breyer’s belief is judicial activism which is where judges look to the underlying principles of the Constitution, which can then result in new policy. And strict constructionism/restraint is where judges are bond by the exact wording of the Constitution, and this is Wallace’s opinion. As for the 2nd amendment, I think that it needs to be changed; when the constitution was written, life was so different and people needed/used guns for different reasons. Nowadays guns are misused and abused by our society (for example by gangs) and I don’t really think that all people should “have the right to bear arms”. On the issue of flag burning, I completely agree with Scalia that the 1st amendment protects the right ot burn an American flag if it is used as a method of protesting. Although I don’t think everyone should mistreat our flag, I do think it is ok to burn one in a protest if there is a valid reason.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Delaney on the issue of flag burning. Although it is completely legal and guaranteed by the first ammendement, it shouldn't be done. She brought up a good point about the flag burning done by the Westboro Baptist Church, and how they won the lawsuit because it was found to be completely legal. However, she questioned, if someone hates America so much that they want to burn our flag, then why on earth would they live here? I think that is a good question, and whoever hates our country so much that they need to show their hatred by burning a flag should just move.
ReplyDeleteSkimming through these comments, I find that mostly everyone agrees with justice Breyer. I agree with these arguments because I think breyer's ideology displays critical thinking in acting and voting in a way that protects the Original dogma of the founding fathers.
ReplyDeleteI agree mainly with Justice Breyers interpretation of the Constitution because he focuses more on the intentions of how the framers wrote it and applies those to situtaions today rather than being stuck word for word on what was written in the constitution when it may not mean the same anymore. This applies to our disscussions in class because Breyer is a "loose constuctionalist" whereas Scalia is a "strict constructionalist"
ReplyDeleteI agree that the second amendment was written for our protection and should be kept in play and overule banning gun, but the type and amount of "arms" that tecnology has created today is much different then when the amendment was written and it needs to be claried which weapons are reasonable to legally keep in a home and which arent.
Yes i agree with scalias explantion of the flag burning issue because it is our right to free expression no matter who agrees with how it is done or not. The courts should never be allowed to prohibit that.
As usual, I have very mixed feelings about all of this. I completely understand why it is important to follow a document that has got us this far. But I can also see that it is an old document that was unable to forsee certain things about the world of today. I believe that both sides are right. Much like how the bible has a wide amount of contraversy about it, so does the constitution. Are they guidlines or rulebooks? Well, ultimately because the constitution is able to be ammended (and was intended to be ammended), it was no perfect rulebook. So I will choose the 'guidelines' option for the majority of my opinion. Still, there are certain things are not open to interpretation. Things that have to do with our rights as humans. Which is why limiting those rights (whether directly or indirectly) is totally out of the question.
ReplyDeleteI feel like gun control is a near-useless endeavor. Can we start arguing about it if/when our nation is ever under attack? The actual usefulness of a gun is so low these days unless you're begging for a lawsuit that I don't think I would ever buy one. It may be our right to own a handgun, and that right shouldn't be taken away. But perhaps there should be more...requirements before one just goes and buys a gun. Maybe background checks amongst other detailed questioning should be necessary before a gun is allowed to be purchased.
Flag burning is also an almost unimportant issue (to me at least). If people are living in America and burning flags, they are quite the hypocrites. But given our high horse and position in the world, despite the scariness of the idea, there will always be someone that hates America. Just be glad that a lot of those people don't live here, much like how those flag burners shouldn't live in a place they hate. However, despite all of this, I'm going to have to say that burning the flag is and expression of free speech and is therefore untouchable.
Despite a lot of people already agreeing to her comments on the videos (and her post being first), I will go ahead and match mine to Helen's. We both seem to have mixed feelings on these subjects because things don't always have to be so black and white. There is (and if there isn't, there should be) a grey area in which people can agree with each other and start talking about what is more important.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Helens view on the flag burning issue how she says, "It is offensive to some, it is true to some, but this is america and we are protected by the first amendment to do stuff like that". Thats how i feel 100% especially being an artist where free expression is one of the most important things to me. If the court could rule flag burning illegal than whats to stop them from ruling painting or other forms of expression illegal because some people may not agree with it? On this issue i am strict constructionalist with justice scalia.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I find myself agreeing more with Breyer’s (and Ginsburg’s) assertion that the country should be guided by the values that are outlined in the Constitution, but that the document should not necessarily be interpreted word for word. I believe that judicial activism is a more effective form of judicial interpretation because the world has changed in ways that the Framers could never have imagined. There are issues today that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution, simply because did not exist two hundred years ago. For these issues, there is no concrete answer to be found within the text, and therefore in order to make a ruling, the values presented in the constitution should be followed. To keep up with rapid changes in the country, there needs to be a somewhat loose interpretation of the Constitution. In this, I definitely agreed with the arguments that Justice Breyer presented. Justice Scalia’s views were also very well formulated, but much too extreme for me. This connects with our discussions in class about judicial ideology and interpretation because we have opposing viewpoints on the issues. Justice Breyer is a loose constructionist, while Justice Scalia is a self-professed originalist or strict constructionist.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the issue of gun control, I am somewhat undecided. I understand Justice Breyer’s position when he questions how far the scope of the Second Amendment reaches. It is a frightening thought to imagine torpedoes or weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the wrong people. However, I also would not want the people to be entirely defenseless if a dangerous situation presented itself. At the very least, I think that there should be more strict regulations and restrictions about who can and cannot purchase a gun, and who can be licensed to sell these weapons.
I do agree with Justice Scalia’s explanation of the flag burning issue. Although many people would consider setting the American flag on fire an incredibly disrespectful thing to do, it is protected under the First Amendment. There is no legal standing to make such a thing illegal, and in my opinion, trying to do so just seems hypocritical. Freedom of speech is one of the most important values in this country; just because we do not approve of an action from a moral standpoint does not mean we get to ban it.
I personally have mixed feelings on the issue, while I feel that Judicial Activism is generally a good idea, I can see the cons for it as well. I believe that the Supreme Court should be able to step in and overturn and create new legislation, but at the same time I do not want the Supreme Court becoming a second Congress. When conservatives say that Justices shouldn’t be allowed to create laws because they aren’t held accountable, I think that that is a benefit. Over the past few years, my faith in U.S. politics has dwindled because of how much of a political game it has become, rather than running our country in the best way possible. Judges are appointed by the president to support his ideology and must be approved by the senate. Other than that, they don’t have to answer to anyone. The Supreme Court Justices don’t have to play political games because they have a life term, they can rule in cases the way they see fit, not the way they think will get them the best PR. With regards to the flag burning issue, I agree with Scalia. Much like with the case involving the Baptist Church, I personally don’t condone the activity but the way the law reads and the principles upon which our country was founded, I don’t see a logical connection that would outlaw such a behavior. However, I do believe that certain aspects of our constitution are outdated. For example, I do not believe the second amendment's right to bear arms is necessarily the best of rights. I agree with Justice Breyer’s wishes to ban handguns, but I do not believe that the ban is constitutional. If the right to bear arms is guarenteed by the bill of rights, no one can take that away from an individual unless the consitution is amended.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I believe that we should only use the Constitution as an outline for out government and that we should use it very loosely in this way. People need to remember that the Constitution was written about two hundred years ago when things were vastly different then they are today. There is absolutely no way that back then the creators believed that this country would survive that long and there is also no way they knew what the future held. Everything since then has changed. You can't apply two hundred year old restrictions to the modern world and expect it to work, it is as if we tried to apply our societal laws to their society. It just isn't happening.
ReplyDeleteI really love the fact that Scalia is allowing us to still burn American flags. It is great that we as a nation can accept the fact that people in our nation do not like it and that they are allowed to speak their mind. And the fact that they are able to speak their mind is such a harsh manner. It is simply amazing, and I am great that it is still allowed. If the courts stepped in and tried to ban flag burning than we really would be turning into a more conservative country that doesn't allow speaking out against the government.
I really do not have an opinion on the second amendment other than I am fine with people owning hand guns if they have to go through the proper steps to obtain it.
I agree with Maia, interpreting the constitution and bill of rights word for word seems highly irrational. The founding fathers could not have in their wildest dreams imagined how the country and the world would have looked in 200+ years. When one reads literature, the references and phrases and speech are out-dated, but the ideals remain constant. The same is true with our constitution. The founding fathers knew how a government should work and how a country should be run; they did not, however, know that any certain issue was going to come up. If the founding fathers had put a "Future" section in which they accurately predicted all laws and questions of constitutionality, then I would be more in favor of a more strict interpretation of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I know already this will be seen as.... Controversial to say the least... But I am not afraid to speak my mind! Here it goes.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need as a country, more than anything else, is to throw it away. Oh man, that feels so good to say. We need to just throw it away. Put it in the garbage with the shells from yesterday's hard boiled egg (From breakfast, you remember), put it through the shredder and flush the pieces down the toilet, toss it out the window but light it on fire first so no one can go out and find it later. You all know that I'm just saying what we were all thinking. If we want the United States to grow we need to throw it away, and we'll see improvement within the next four to ten years.
Mr. Bookout... Did you even watch the interview?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Austin’s opinion on Supreme Court Justice accountability. While it is often viewed negatively that Justices cannot be held accountable for some of their political actions, I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. Because Justices are appointed by the president and approved by the senate, they do not have to answer to anyone after their appointment. They serve life terms, meaning they have the freedom to make decisions based on what they truly believe is right, or what the liberals or conservatives think is right. I feel that the fact that they do not have to be involved in political games is beneficial to us, not detrimental.
ReplyDeleteI agree more so with Breyer’s position on how the Constitution is interpreted. This is mainly because I agree that times change and so the laws change. The world has to be prepared for changes that are inevitable, so does the law. The only thing that the Supreme Court can do is interpret the Constitution how they see fit and base their decisions off of the natural rights presented in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer because when the Framers constructed the Constitution, the danger of owning a firearm was a lot less severe then it is in today’s world. New technology has created new, more dangerous weapons that are available to the public. Aside from the fact that situations where people would need fire arms were completely different from situations in which people would need them today. We should take the Constitution and how it was originally meant to be interpreted and structure it towards how the world is today.
Flag burning is always something that really bothers me. I think that if you burn an American flag you simply are not an American. To do so is a huge slap in the face. You cannot call yourself an American if you burn the flag. The flag stands for our freedom, and if you burn it, you are basically saying that freedom means nothing to you. Unfortunately there is no law against it. It is just morally unwise and sickening to individuals who actually care about what happens to this country and how we present ourselves to the rest of the world.
I agree more with justice Breyer's interpretation of the constitution. It feels more in touch with modern society and the way that problems get solved nowadays as opposed to the 18th century. I feel that interpreting the Constitution literally basically means you are taking the framer's 'word for it' on every issue. I don't think a strict point of view is wrong, i just think it has less of a real world application especially since the revolution of the world with networking and technology etc... The example Breyer gives of the Internet being applied based on underlying values rather than strict laws shows that the meaning of the constitution is more important than the wording. The framers couldnt have possibly imagined the world we live in now, let alone govern it with words that echoe views from 300 years ago. Like I said, i dont think a strict POV is wrong, it has its validity- everything is written in clear language, whats not for the federal governmetn is up to the states and for that reason i can see why people dont want the judical branch to act as a living legal entity that has the power to influence policy rather than just deem it in line with teh constitution or not.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the 2nd amendment goes, i think it is probably the most directly written. While i do not think machine guns and torpedoes should be available to all civilians, it is hard to avoid the fact that guns are a right of every American citizen. I agree with Breyer and think he is right for trying to limit guns as much as possible, but in the world of Constitutional interpretation, he is right for the wrong reasons. I believe guns have to be protected. If not, then whats to say that at any time, a justice can simply say 'well this part of the constitution isnt in touch with teh direction society is headed now, so its out the window.' I think guns generally do more harm than good but if they are guranteed to citizens in the constitution then they cant be banned.
With the flag burning, I agree with Justice Scalia. The 1st amendment gurantees the right to expression and an anti-american view is guranteed as well. Its always easy to agree with free speech when nobody says anything obnoxious but protecting people like the WBC is what the amendment is for. As long as nobody is being physcially injured, i feel like it is a part of our society that must be accepted. People like that might not be the majority but protecting the rights of people we dont share views with is why America is hte land of the free. Few think flag burning is a good thing but what would be even worse is outlawing it. That to me is even more Unamerican than burning the flag itself. Sometimes it might be hard to swallow, but half of all people are below average and they still have their rights to burn flags all they want.
I completely agree with those of us who believe that stricter laws should be put into place in regards to the selling of firearms. It is way to easy to get a gun in this country. It is almost as easy as obtaining a driver's license in America, and we only have to drive on the road for about five minutes to see the what a mistake that is. By enforcing stricter laws the amount of crime and deaths caused by guns would most likely subside, which to me at least, doesn't sound like a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd since we are not living in the 1700's, we do not necessarily have to interpret the Constitution exactly like how it was when it was written. Thus, laws on guns are completely different then they were back then. Times have changed and the world has evolved, and so should we.
I agree with Justice Breyer’s ascertain that we should be guided by the values outlined in our constitution. The founding fathers designed the Constitution to be the foundation of law, but left it open to interpretation to apply to unforeseeable events like the Internet or technology. However, when something is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as the right to bear arms, the court has no way of saying that it is illegal. Judges and their ideology greatly influence how they view the constitution, whether they be liberal or conservative, judicial activists or strict constructionists. I believe that banning handguns is unconstitutional, and agree with the Supreme Courts interpretations. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In this instance, the meaning of the constitution is crystal clear, and Justice Breyers arguments to the contrary do not change that. I agree with Scalias explanation that the right of people to burn flags is protected by the right to free speech. He is right in saying that “it was not up to him” because it is not his political or social opinions that matter, it is what the constitution permits. Both Justices have excellent points and ideas, and are very intelligent. I think it’s great to have so many different contrasting judicial philosophies on the Supreme Court. The Justices have opportunities to hear opinions different from their own and learn from each other, and make the best decisions possible. Both differing views on Constitutional interpretation are important, without judicial activism, Brown v The Board of Education might never have happened, and using the Constitution to make rulings and set precedents is very important to upholding democracy.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Zev, i like his comparison to teh bible. I think that nowadays, the real lessons of the bible are the all encompassing ones of loving thy neighbor and forgiveness etc... I dont think the bible should be interpreted literally, just as the constitution should not be interpreted strictly. I feel the bible was written to guide its followers to happiness and salvation with lessons of peace and such just as the constitution serves to guide a nation with messages like liberty and freedom. Neither text is applicable to today's society, in a literal way at least. Each is just a reflection of somebody who lived 300-2000 years ago's opinion on how to live and govern. It seems irrational to ask the advice of someone who lived 300 years ago in relation to the problems we face nowadays.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Austin about the pros and cons of Judicial activism. While it should definitely occur with certain cases, I can see how problems can arise with the Court making policy, despite being part of the national government that is not elected by the people, or accountable. I also agree with many people's statements that even though they personally disagree with flag burning, Scalia and the other Justices were right in saying that it is protected by the first amendment
ReplyDelete1. I would have to agree more with Breyer’s and Ginsburg philosophy on how to interpret the Constitution, as many have mentioned before, our society is constantly changing and moving forward so we should accommodate for the new beliefs. The framers of our Constitution had great ideas but I doubt they would have ever imagined the America that exists today. I disagree with Scalia and Wallace’s way of interpreting because many of the issues today aren’t one way or the other, there are many gray areas that exist and by trying to use the Constitution to make these issues as easy as right or wrong, it removes the other facets of the issue.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that Breyer made some good points and bad points through his explanation of the 2nd amendment, overall I think I disagree because the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the people. If guns were to be banned then the law-abiding citizens would give up their guns however, that doesn’t stop criminals from keeping their guns, thus many of the law-abiding citizens will be in danger and unable to protect themselves from this kind of threat.
3. Although it is wrong to burn a flag, and many citizens look down upon it, I do agree with Scalia in that this issue is freedom of speech and a form of protest therefore they have that right. While a flag burner may be hurting someones feelings, they are not doing direct harm to another person.
I find myself agreeing with Justices Breyer and Ginsburg on their philosophies regarding the Constitution as a living document. Breyer mentioned the internet and TV as technological inventions that have altered the world we live in and, as a result, the nation we live in. The framers could have never expected what the future would hold, and I don’t believe they ever pretended they could. They knew that long after their deaths, the United States would live on, and that it would be a very different place than the country they lived in back then. The Constitution, in my opinion, was never a strict “How To” on governing, but instead, an outline; a way of illustrating the values of our nation as a whole, but leaving room for the future to bring new governmental issues that were unforeseen at the time. If we could only go by what was in the constitution, we would be reverting to a more primitive state than we are in today; a state where slavery existed, only white males had rights, and segregation was legal, among many other negative aspects that have since been fixed. Scalia’s interpretation certainly makes his job easier – if it’s not in the constitution, its unconstitutional – but that doesn’t mean he should follow it. I feel that judicial activism is the only way our country can move forward.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer’s explanation, but I feel that some of his arguments weren’t exactly sound. Though at the time there were only primitive guns, now we have missiles, torpedos, and machine guns, which does change the nature of the law, as technology changed the nature of free speech and other such constitutional issues. However, Wallace brings up a good point: even though the world has changed since then, it doesn’t mean that a ban on all handguns should occur either. Essentially, a middle-ground must be agreed upon between a complete ban on all guns and completely free use of deadly weapons, entrusted to any person who wants one, regardless of the severity of a mistake with a weapon.
I agree with Scalia’s thoughts on flag-burning. Though I’d rather people didn’t do it, and though it is disrespectful to the country as a whole and to the people who fought for the freedoms which these people take for granted and the flag under which they live, it is still a right entrusted to them. Protesting is legal, and it is a form of protesting. I would hope that the only reason they do it is to get attention, and not because they want to burn our country to the ground, but technically, there’s nothing we can do about it. I’d rather that right exist and they burn flags than the right be lost.
To be honest, though I agree with Breyer and lean toward the liberal-side, I felt that in these interviews, Scalia had some very good points and, as they mentioned, he was a charmer. Despite my lack of agreement with his ideas, I found that he was a likeable, knowledgeable, and well-argued man, and many of his statements made sense to me. I agree that if people really want to end these issues once and for all, they should simply try to pass amendments to the constitution. After all, just like flag-burning, his opinion of the action has no effect whatsoever on his ruling of it; if it’s in the constitution, its okay by him. I admire his perseverance in his own philosophy.
I agree with Lauren's points on gun control, and her last sentence especially rang true with me: "...we are not living in the 1700's, we do not necessarily have to interpret the Constitution exactly like how it was when it was written. Thus, laws on guns are completely different then they were back then."
ReplyDeleteI believe that Lauren and I agree on the activist way of interpreting the constitution. My view of the constitution and how I personally interpret it can be summed up using a quote: “You are too concerned with what was and what will be. There’s a saying: yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present.” The constitution is history, from a simpler time, the future is unknown, as who knows what the next “internet” is going to be and how it is going to fundamentally change our world and country, but the present is now. We interpret an old document because it is what our country was founded on, and we cannot just ignore the past. However, today is a different time, and we must account for it. In the future, the world will be different, in the past, the world was different. Therefore, we cannot limit ourselves by adhering to an outdated document, nor can we pretend to be able to anticipate what is next. Where did I get that insightful quote, you might ask? Why, none other than Kung Fu Panda’s Master Oogway, the smartest turtle this side of the Mississippi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znnj1oFxCRM
As Lauren said "Times have changed and the world has evolved, and so should we."
Well, that's gonna do it for all of us here at Channel 4 News. You stay classy, San Diego. I'm Ron Burgundy?
Okay, so the Justices that I agree with are none other than Justince Breyer, and of course, Justice Ginsburg. The Constitution, which I personally love,is not a harsh parchment, but a generous one. She wants us to follow her,not in a way where we don't use our minds, but in a way where we let her be our guide, our guide to Justice. Whether the Great Creators are real are not, we all know that the constitution had to come in to existence from somewhere. Might I add that it is nearly impossible to know for certain what these "Great Creators" were imagining when they brought life to Constitution, since society was so very different back in the Dark Days.
ReplyDeleteThe right to bare arms, the Second Amendment, however it be named its principle still stands, and that is to protect...America. Back in the Dark Days the times were different, when the sun set (according to researchers) the outside was not safe, since it was so dark. People needed their weapons to protect their life, liberty, and property. Even though we are in the Era of Light, that does not mean that darkness will never prevail. People still have the right to have that protection that the brave souls that triumphed through the Dark Days cherished so dear.
I have a question for you. Is it considered freedom of speech to burn a flag? I have an answer for you. Yes. My companion Scalia stands tall next to my side when he agrees with me that as long as innocent people are not in danger, our rights still stand! The first Amendment is first for a reason! The reason is, it comes first in my heart, and the hearts of the Great Creators, may God Bless Their Souls, wherever they are creating now :(
This is in response to Brett Layman. Does someone want to help me stuff this nerd in the trashcan huh?
ReplyDeleteHope I didn't scare you! I was just foolin ya, you had some good points. They may differ from my opinions, but I respect your opinions because that is what America is all about. Thanks to the Great Creators we can think what we want, it's all good.
In general, I agree more with Justice Breyer’s opinions of judicial activism. I believe that we should focus on the overall values of the Constitution and not specific wordings that may not be as applicable in the modern world. Justice Breyer made a good point regarding how the world is constantly changing and evolving, and the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that keeps up with these changes.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Justice Breyer’s opinion of the 2nd Amendment, I would have to disagree. Although I do not believe that everyone should have easy access to dangerous weapons, it is very clearly stated in the Constitution that it is a right to bear arms. There should, of course, be some requirements and some sort of registration process in order to ensure that this right will not infringe on our right to safety.
I believe that flag-burning is protected by the 1st Amendment, specifically the freedom of speech. Although I do not support the notion of burning the American flag, I agree with Justice Scalia in that people do have the right to do so.
I greatly agree with Alex Bookout's opinion regarding interpretation of the Constitution. I feel that his statement that the Constitution is a guide book rather than a rule book is very accurate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with kittenmittens statement about the second amendment that there should be a middle ground. Even though our world is changing there are some rights that I feel should be universal and not change over time, for example the right to bear arms. As such, there needs to be a middle ground because although things are changing this right still applies, it just needs some updating to fit with the current time frame. I also agree with kittenmittens statement of “I’d rather that right exist and they burn flags than the right be lost.” Which goes back to although times are changing some rights need to stick with us through time.
ReplyDeleteI would have to side with Breyer and Ginsburg that we should be guided by the values outlined in the Constitution. Breyer is right in the fact that the founders who created the constitution and America definitely did not know that the internet, airplanes, or other technological advances would come about, and tried to instill ideas and values with the notion that we would have to be able to apply them to society in an appropriate manner. I believe that there isn't really a whole lot of specific details outlining what we should and should not do, but rather guidelines up for interpretation and debate. Breyer's explanation of the 2nd amendment was a good argument, but I wouldn't interpret the constitution in that manner, I would agree more with the Supreme Court's overall decision. Scalia's explanation of the flag burning issue was well-worded and I do agree with him that the first amendment protects that right, even though he and many others do not endorse it. I also enjoyed this quote from Scalia, “I attack ideas, I don't attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you cant separate the two, you've gotta get another day job, you don't want to be a judge.” I like his character but I disagree with the ideas, and I believe that those who hate him, hate him for his ideas, but I doubt they would hate him for his character.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brett's take on whether the Constitution was to be viewed as guidelines or a rulebook. I believe the same thing, that the Constitution was to be viewed as guidelines since it really wasn't intended to stay in the same manner throughout the life of America. It was intended to be amended and should be amended in whatever way society desires. Also, the point about flag burning generally shares my opinion. Many may not agree with it, but they cannot rule out the fact that it is protected by our first amendment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we should be guided by the values outlined within the Constitution when appropriate. I think that there is much to be desired to have outlined within the Constitution and that is how our Fore fathers left it ‘open-ended’ in a way. They left a way for us to amend things to the Constitution so that when we come to face a problem within our country that has not been apparent before, we should have the resources to deal with that problem completely. They did this by having amendments available for us to use.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe that once we have made a way in order to cover these situations and ‘deal’ with them and be able to rule on them, they should be interpreted in the way that they were written. I believe that most of today’s issues with how the Constitution is interpreted are mostly formed around the privacy issue as well as many moral situations versus factual situations. We should have an Amendment to the Constitution added that covers privacy, and what that entails to the citizens. We should also somehow deal with the issue of how we interpret and what limitations you have when interpreting moral issues.
I think that to pick an exact side of which I personally agree with is impossible due to the fact that both sides have valid points about certain issues on either side. I think that instead we should not have only two sides, but we should create a new option instead that fits both parties and compromises between the two.
I do not agree with Breyer in that we should apply the law ‘flexibly to ever-changing values’. The framers certainly missed a few things when writing the Constitution, however that does not mean that we should interpret the Constitution loosely and freely. It was written to clearly outline the law and say what we should and should not do. And if we do have an issue that is not specifically covered by the Constitution an Amendment should be made and we should go about solving the problem that way, and interpret that Amendment the way it was written as well.
I believe that it is our right as American citizens to be able to own and have a permit to carry handguns. But, I do believe in not allowing criminals to own, a well as increasing the difficulty of the process of owning a handgun, and having an extensive and through background check. It is specifically said ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’. I think that we should make a decision as to what an’arm’ is because in the 16th century there were only a few types of arms. I think that citizens should be able to own any gun, except an assault classified one due to it being unnecessary because there is no case for a citizen to need an assault rifle-those should only be left for the military and police to use and digression.
I do not agree with Scalia in the flag-burning situation. I believe that burning a United States flag is not a form of speech. When you burn a flag, unless it is in s ceremony, it is inappropriate, disrespectful, and those who do this should be punished for doing so. We should make a law, or amendment to make it so that you cannot burn a United States flag on US soil, unless in a flag ceremony of changing out an old flag. I do believe that the curt should have stepped in, and we should take further action to prevent this from ever happening again legally.
I generally agree more with Breyer's interpretation that we should be guided by the Constitution's values rather than its wording. The founding fathers realized that the Constitution would be a document that would be used over a long period time (although they might not have realized that the Constitution would have endured well into the next millenium), and because of this, they realized that the Constitution would need to be able to adapt to change and time. And as Breyer said, the world is constantly changing and evolving.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the 2nd Amendment, I agree more on the Supreme Court's later ruling. Although Breyer made some good points, I feel that the founding fathers meant the 2nd Amendment as it is. The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow people access to weaponry should they ever feel it necessary to revolt against the government or to give the people the option to protect their liberties by force. Nowadays, we probably would not be militarizing against the government, but the general idea is for the government to lay off our liberties and let us protect our own rights when we feel that the government has failed to do so.
In addition, I agree with Scalia that the 1st Amendment protects the right to burn an American flag. Although I greatly disagree on this form of expression, it is a form of expression nonetheless. The idea of Checks and Balances goes beyond the three branches of government. There is a form of Checks and Balances between the government and the people, which is why there is a Bill of Rights in the first place. If the people feel so unhappy with America they feel compelled to do such unamerican acts, the 1st Amendment grants them that right. That's why the founding fathers put it there in the 1st place.
Sometimes, I find it personally hard coming to terms with how things I feel are immoral and disrespectful actions are legal or how things that I feel are moral can be considered illegal. But I think the reason our country is this way is due to the fact our country was based on the separation of church and state. This whole concept of separation of church and state is basically what defined America as America for the longest time, and makes America what it is.
Response to Tamara:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement, especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Banning handguns really only apply to people who actually follow the law. Criminals will find ways of obtaining guns illegaly in order to do illegal things, in addition to the fact the ban is considered unconstitutional.
I agree more with Breyer and Ginsburg’s opinion that we are to look to the Constitution for guidance as to what is right, but not go by the exact wording mainly because the Constitution, though very insightful and highly important, was made hundreds of years ago. There are new things (internet privacy for example) that could not have been written about back in the 1700’s simply because they weren’t yet created, therefore judges do need to create their own opinions on these issues. This type of judicial interpretation is called judicial activism, and most of these activists are very liberal.
ReplyDeleteI do somewhat agree with Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd Amendment because the first sentence of the beginning of the amendment is very important because it speaks of a militia, which was pertaining to something that was very important in the time that the Constitution was written, but nowadays isn’t as relevant. Since so many things have changed since the 1700’s I understand that Breyer would wish to challenge what this amendment says and how it pertains to modern day.
I think that, although it is awful and distasteful, the court can’t step in when someone does something such as burn a flag. Ultimately they are not physically hurting anyone, and it only makes themselves look unpatriotic and ignorant. This being said, it is up to them on whatever they wish to do, as long as it is not against the law.
I agree with kittenmittens in that the framers of the Constitution most likely did understand that the United States was going to progress and change and that the rules would have to change along with it. I also agree that they didn't think of it as a "How-To" and also that if we did follow the Constitution to a tee that we would regress to a more primitive state and would allow no room for progress or new ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I agree with Breyer’s assertion more—that we should be guided by the values in our Constitution. I agree with his statement that the “Constitution uses words like, ‘the freedom of speech’ and it stands for value”, and his idea that the founders didn’t know about the Internet, TV, or airplanes, so we have to take values in the Constitution and apply them. If you try to answer a question (like the one regarding gun control in the Second Amendment) by “looking at the values Madison, Hamilton, and the elders wrote in this document”, you will see that it is very difficult to find the answer to that question at the word “because the word is liberty”. It would be like trying to figure out what Madison thought about the Internet. Breyer is a judge that looks to the underlying principles of the Constitution. He believes that the Court can be an instrument of social, economic, and political change. According to our notes, he is a judicial activist, instead of a strict constructionist (like Scalia).
ReplyDeleteWhen Breyer is asked his opinion on the Second Amendment regarding gun control (the right of the people to bear arms), he poses the question, “what is the scope to the right to bear arms?” On the contrary, the Supreme Court’s interpretation on the Second Amendment led to handgun bans being overturned, which goes against Breyer. Personally, I believe that handguns should be banned to civilians, in general. Scalia stated his answer to a question regarding interpreting the constitution: “what did the words mean to the people who ratified the bill of rights or who ratified the constitution” as apposed to what people today think it means or would like it to mean. It is realistic to agree that back then the framers wanted the right to bear arms and be able to use guns, but today we have the technology, police force, and many other factors that protect us.
As terrible as flag burning sounds, it cannot be stopped because of the first amendment. I agree with Scalia when he says that the Constitution protects the right to burn an American flag, even though it is a horrible act against our country.
I agree with Danielle when she says that "it just seems more logical to use the constitution as a basic outline where judges/officials/etc. can interpret how laws should be applied based on the situation".
ReplyDeleteIn general, I tend to agree more so with Breyer's and Ginsburg's assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution. This is Judicial Activism at play and it makes more sense to me than Strict Constructionism because of how much the world changes each day. As Ginsburg pointed out, the "We the People" in the Constitution has little ground in modern day because African Americans and women and many others would not be considered "the People of the United States". Because the world is rapidly undergoing changes, it would not be smart, in my opinion, to interpret the Constitution word for word. It was created by the Framers a long time ago and they could not have accounted for everything in today's society. That is not their fault that they couldn't predict what kinds of technology would be in place, but we must accommodate for this. I believe that Justice Ginsburg had the right idea that interpreting the Constitution with the underlying meaning is the best thing to do. Breyer mad e a good point when he said that we cannot take the Constitution word for word to apply it to the Internet, airplanes, television, etc. W must take values that do not change and use them to decide an outcome of an issue today. I do realize, however, that by interpreting the Constitution through meaning rather than exact words allows for possible disagreement of people's interpretations.
ReplyDeleteI cannot say that I agree with Breyer's explanation of the 2nd Amendment because of the way I see weapons being used today. When the Constitution was written, the hope was for this amendment to protect the country and its citizens from harm. Currently, there is so much violence and I think there needs to be stricter regulations and gun control is necessary. I see how people like to shoot for sport, but I think protection is more important than sport.
I agree with Scalia's explanation of flag-burning because the 1st Amendment protects people's freedom of expression. I do not think that it is the Court's responsibility to intervene in this issue because it is just how someone felt they should express themselves. It is awful and I would never engage in such activity, but I don't feel it is necessary to prohibit.
I agree with Emily Stansell when she said that it is important to have a looser view because of so many differing opinions. This makes sense because we should change due to changing times. It has been 200 years of change and that requires loose interpretation. I also agree with her opinion on the fact that the 2nd Amendment was talking about a "controlled militia" which is definitely not the majority of people who are using weapons. This fact is scary because people use in in an uncontrolled way rather than the reasons that a militia would use it.
ReplyDeleteI generally agree with Breyer’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution because our world is very different than when the Constitution was created and the framers could not have imagined how our nation would develop and write the Constitution in preparation for it. However, there are some issues that a more strict following of the Constitution may be for the best. Overall this relates with our discussion in class because of the different views of judicial interpretation and ideology. We can clearly see that Breyer and Ginsburg are much more loose in their interpretations, where as Wallace and Scalia believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court’s decision of overturning the ban on handguns, though Breyer does make good points because the framers intended the right to bare arms as a way to protect themselves and their country and not to be used out of senseless violence. Nonetheless, it is a right of the people that should not be taken away because if done so and the time that we do end up needing to bare arms, for whatever reason, how are we to protect ourselves without such tools.
I do not agree that flag burning should be protected under the 1st Amendment. However, it is because it is a way to express one’s opinions. I feel that are better ways to say that one does not like America than to burn the flag which hundreds of men and woman have died to keep us Free, the fact that my father is in the Navy may have a role in how I feel about burning the symbol of our nation, but I feel that a person that is so mad about something in America should just leave because they obviously do not cherish those that have died to give them their rights.
I really like how Kittenmittens worded it. The constitution was not meant to be a strict "How to" for us to follow, but rather guidelines to modify to our ever-changing world. If we were to strictly follow the constitution and think in the ways they lived and though we would not have progressed to the type of nation we are today and would be regressing. I also agree that we need to find a middle ground with the gun laws and that perhaps certain guns should be restricted to own and keep at home, but that are available for use at shooting ranges or hunting grounds to rent out, or to buy and store at these locations so as to prevent their misuse.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to both Breyer and Scalia’s assertions about the Constitution, I have to say that I most strongly agree with Breyer. The Constitution IS what our country’s values and laws are based on, but it’s only the foundation. I think that each state has the right to make it own laws as long as they are constitutional, meaning they don’t directly defy the values set in the constitution. There is a difference between being guided by the constitution and following it literally sentence by sentence, and I think using it as a kind of handbook is the most realistic for our society today. Like Breyer said, the founding fathers had no way of knowing the kind of technology we have today, or the kind of influences the media has on our society. I agree with his explanation of the 2nd Amendment, that the Framers didn’t intend gun control to go unregulated. However, I believe that the value still holds true that every American has the RIGHT to bear arms. It is up to the court whether or not a person SHOULD bear arms and whether it is safe for the public or not. I agree with Scalia that it is not up to him whether flag burning is legal or not, and that the right to burn an American flag is protected under the 1st Amendment, but I do feel that if the Court has the right, then they should prohibit it in certain places/circumstances. It's hard to make special rules regarding a certain Amendment without becoming hypocritical, but one could argue a thousand different cases for each right and Amendment to Constitution, and because there is no definite ‘yes this should always hold true’ or ‘no, this should never be true’, I believe judicial activism should be dominant over strict constitutionalism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elizabeth that “They left a way for us to amend things to the Constitution so that when we come to face a problem within our country that has not been apparent before, we should have the resources to deal with that problem completely. They did this by having amendments available for us to use.” This is completely relevant in today’s society, because there is no way for us to progress without making changes. If we hadn’t have changed since the creation of the Constitution, then we would still be stuck in society of the 1700s. I believe that an Amendment should be made to the Constitution if we need one, and we have the resources to do it without creating a national crisis.
ReplyDeleteI definitely lean towards Breyer's opinions about the Constitution. I think it is very obvious that society has changed, that morals and values aren't as they were so long ago. It's important to be able to analyze the framers' intentions with the decisions they made. And of course it isn't easy to look back and just assume what was going through their minds, but we can't just apply word for word of what they said then to today. Too many things have changed and like Ginsburg said, we need to adapt.
ReplyDeleteTalking about the 2nd Amendment, I can't say i completely agree with Breyer. I mean, it's true that it is very dangerous to let anyone bear arms, which is why instead of banning it, the government should take more precautionary steps to make sure it is safe.
I must say that I do agree with Scalia's opinion on flag-burning. It is a very offensive act and maybe the people doing it don't realize the impact it can have on others, but it is indeed protected by the Constitution. It may very well be against most people's values, but it is freedom of expression, which is something everyone has the right to. He is right in saying that it wasn't up to him no matter how much he, or anyone for that matter, was appalled by it.
I agree with Taylor in that there are many other ways to express feelings of discontent toward America than just burning the flag. It's silly that people think they are making a difference by doing so. If something really bothers them so much, sitting around and wining about it will do nothing. So it's true--if they hate it so much, they should just leave. Yet it's so important to respect others' opinions. No one is ever really right when it comes to opinions and so who are we to judge people for it? People need to remember to be respectful of not only others, but of what their actions represent.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Breyer and Ginsburg’s interpretation of the Constitution. Interpreting the constitution word for word today makes no sense. It was written in a time period where the issues we have today did not exist and could not exist for that matter. There is no way the framers could write the constitution knowing all the problems there would be with many laws. There are many issues that can be related to certain clauses and amendments but not every problem in the Constitution has a straight forward ruling. Strict constitution limits the government powers which can be good and bad. This connects to what we were learning in class about how there are different ways to interpret the constitution and how there are different ideas also. Wallace and Scalia make good points with what they said about creating rights that are not referred to in the Constitution and how it should not be up to the justices on the Supreme Court to create those rights. It then falls to Congress though and they have to employ laws that will protect these new rights. I do not agree with Breyer’s interpretation of the second amendment. People need guns to protect themselves and if you ban guns the people that really want them and use them illegally are still going to and that will never change. The flag burning issue is a difficult on to take a side on. I do not believe that people should be allowed to burn the American flag in America. But the first amendment allows people to be against it. I think the court should get involved in this issue because some people like people in the military are very offended by this and see this as a act of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justice Breyer's assertion that the Constitution is more fitting to be an outline for our values. He was being specific when mentioning that the Framers did not consider TV or internet, but I do think that the Framers considered what phrasing would be best to benefit and protect the future population of the United States. By doing that, I think the Constitution lives and was meant to adapt with us. Justice Breyer also mentions that he respects other people for having their own opinion. Like what we agreed on during class, there is no completely right or wrong answers when it comes to opinions.
ReplyDeleteI cannot say I wholeheartedly agree with Justice Breyer's view of the 2nd Amendment, but I do think the US would benefit from stricter gun control. I think that the Framers wanted the people to have a sense of security for themselves, above all things. Using the Constitution as an outline in this situation could lead to the specifics that Lindsay mentioned such as taking a gun safety course before purchase.
I also think that flag-burning is protected under the 1st Amendment because it is a way to express an opinion. Flag-burning is not something I would particularly choose to do, but I appreciate the fact that I have a choice to do it. I do feel that Justice Scalia and I both recognize where the legal and moral beliefs in this situation separate at the same place.
I find myself agreeing with Alex Bookout in this case and pretty much everyone else. Alex makes very valid points that the framers could not know what issues we would have today. Also he says that they were all white rich males which show that things have changed since the writing of the constitution. But I do disagree with him on the gun issue. States that have concealed gun laws actually have less crime then states that don’t because before someone commits a crime they think “Hey, the guy I’m about to rob could also have a gun and he could shoot me so maybe I shouldn’t rob him.” But in states where people are not allowed to have concealed weapons criminals do not think that way hence more crime. Many people think that guns should be banned but if this happens the criminals who use them illegally will still obtain them and use them illegally. People need guns in order to protect themselves because not everyone lives in Coronado where the risk of getting robbed is very slim.
ReplyDeleteDISCLAIMER: I typed up my entire comment and then lost it, so bear with me.
ReplyDelete* Before I even began watching these video clips, I had already formed my opinions of Constitutional interpretation--I count myself a firm believer in judicial activism. I believe that the Constitution is, indeed, a "living document," a set of well-crafted guidelines upon which our courts' rulings should be based, but not a rigid hindrance to the nation's legislative progress.
As motivations and ideologies change in this country, it is my belief that our courts should change their rulings accordingly; if they do not, they will become out of sync with the nation and risk becoming completely obsolete. In order for rulings to have a true impact on citizens, the citizens must feel as if their ideas are valid and hold weight with the leaders of this nation.
Of course, as a liberal American, it is not surprising that I side with judicial activism--I am on the side of progress in many areas.
* I do believe with many of Breyer's opinions on the Second Amendment (guns can be dangerous, missiles should not be counted among "arms") and understand the very legitimate desire to cut down on urban gun crimes with the passing of this legislation. I also understand that the Second Amendment's origins in fear of outsiders (British soldiers, Native Americans, over-controlling government) may not be as applicable as they once were.
That being said, I respect the citizen's right to protect his/her family, home, and possessions from attack with the use of arms. Though the reason to own and bear weapons may have changed some over the years, the core purpose of protection has not, and I therefore support the right to bear arms as outlined in the Second Amendment.
* While I find that people's perceived need to resort to flag-burning to make their opinions heard is sad and even disturbing, I do think that it is a right as provided for by the First Amendment's right to free speech. There is no clause in that amendment which specifies flag-burning as an exception to the right; ergo, flag-burning should be included as part of that right.
I think that the flag stands as more than just an empty symbol--it stands for the history, ideas, dreams, and changes of this nation, and it should be respected as such. However, if the burning of a flag does not endanger the lives of others, I must agree that a citizen does have a right to burn one as a sign of his or her ideas under the right to free speech laid out in the First Amendment.
* As a last thought, I would like to point out that I really appreciated that both Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia remained civil, rational, and clear throughout their respective interviews--never did the interviews descend into chaos with the interviewer shouting over the interviewee to be heard and all academic tone going out the window, as too many "interviews" on television and radio have recently.
That being said, I did find Justice Scalia the more persuasive and collected speaker of the two; even though I didn't agree with many of his opinions, the way in which he presented them was well-constructed and decisive.
I find myself drifting towards Breyer’s and Ginsburg’s side. I think that the whole purpose of the Constitution is to aide us in maintaining how we adapt to the changes in modern times. It connects to our discussion in class as it is a revisiting of the strict interpretation vs loose interpretation of the Constitution. I think that, although Breyer had a worthy argument on the second amendment, it is not the way the Constitution should be interpreted, rather, the way the Supreme Court held the decision. I think Scalia explained it very well, and yes, Americans have the right to burn the flag. Stepping in would have been a complete violation of the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteBraydon presents an excellent idea which I hadn't previously considered: that people who purchase arms illegally/outside the realms of the law should not be protected by the law.
ReplyDeleteThe right to bear arms should only extend to legal sources of purchase, not to back-alley and risky providers--likely a further indicator of crime, anyway.
In response to Sir Russell James Case III, I must admit, you have courage! But the idea of completely throwing out the Constitution or the Courts, or whatever you are speaking of would probably not be a very wise decision as it would neglect the very purpose of the government, which, however, may be a necessity in the future! After all, who are we to understand the deep and intricate workings of a government? We only know as much as we are told. Perhaps we should throw it all out and start fresh! A society where all a equal, where none is above another. This, truly, would be a comrades’ dream come true! Also, you answered none of the questions. D:
ReplyDeleteI think when it comes down to it, I'm going to have to agree with what justice Breyer's idea. I think judicial activism is the better idea. Things in society have changed dramatically since the constitution was written. I feel like progress would be extremely hard to interpret the constitution strictly. A loose interpretation is necessary for some of the things society is trying to do. The framers didnt know what was going to happen in the future and if they constitution was meant to be interpreted stritly, a lot of our country's accomplishments would not have been possible. It is the justices' job to protect the true meaning of the constitution. i agreed with Scalia on a few topics and disagreed with Breyer on a few as aweel, but overall I think breyer had the corredt approach of things. With certain issues such as the burning of the flag, I have to agree with scalia in that the constitution protects that right to the people. Even if you may think it is morally wrong, according to the constitution, the people have that right.
ReplyDeleteI find myself agreeing more with Breyer’s and Ginsburg’s assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined by the constitution. The constitution was written over 200 hundred years ago. How could the framers have known how the constitution and bill of rights would apply to modern day. They could not have predicted the Internet, mass gun production, or privacy issues. The exact wording of the constitution does not necessarily fit to all scenarios now a day. In class we discussed that different judges have liberal (Breyer and Ginsburg), conservative (Scalia and Wallace), or moderate ideologies, as well as different judicial interpretations. All of these thing shape judges personal opinions about cases. I disagree with Breyer’s explanation of the 2nd amendment. It was put in place so that the state militia could be ready at anytime, and would not be nationalized. However, we no longer have a militia. Also we now have so many types of “arms” out there that were not present when the amendment was created. I agree with Scalia on the issue of flag burning. It is protected as a freedom under the first amendment. Flag burning is a form of protest. It may be extreme, but it is a freedom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meg in the fact that I find myself between judicial activism and strict constructionist, depending on the issue. Yes there are things in the constitution that cannot really be applied now, or are to broad from how many advance we have made, but there are also things in the constitution that can still be applied now. It all depends on what the issue at hand is.
ReplyDeleteI like how Christina said that we can interpret the Constitution in multiple ways, but our values can be the same. I will respect others' opinions as long as they are fair and have good intentions. The Supreme Court functions well because each Justice supports the ideals of the Constitution while respecting each other.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am not entirely for judicial activism, I tend to agree more with Breyers and Ginsburg than I do with Scalia simply because I agree that the founding fathers could not have imagined the technological advancements that lie at the root of many of today’s issues such as privacy over the internet and advanced fire arms. The underlying principles of the Constitution should guide judges today, as they make decisions about things incomprehensible to the founding fathers.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do not agree with Breyer’s position on gun control. When the constitution was written, guns were not as powerful and accurate and cities were hamlets by today’s standards. Today, as demonstrated by shootings that occur all too often, it is easy for one crazy psychopath to abuse the rights granted by the second amendment and kill innocent people. Although a law may somewhat impinge upon a person’s freedom, if it can save lives it is well worth the forfeited right. Regardless, it is still possible to obtain a gun, there is just a more complicated purchasing and licensing process.
I do agree with Scalia’s decision that flag-burning is upheld by the first amendment. Although it sickens me that anyone would do such a thing, it should be allowed. If the court had stepped in and prohibited flag-burning, it would have set a precedent for future cases wishing to punish seemingly immoral deeds. At what point would it stop? Although most of us can agree that it is disrespectful and wrong to burn a flag so many have fought for, may people might not agree on following laws that might aim to limit any of the rights granted by the Constitution.
I definitely agree with Helen and her views. There was just absolutely no way the Framers could have ever even imagined these technologies existing in their country, and because of this there was no reason for them to write about these things. I mean you can't really write rules for the unknown, so why even bother trying.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rowena’s position on Scalia’s decision about flag-burning. She says, “The idea of Checks and Balances goes beyond the three branches of government. There is a form of Checks and Balances between the government and the people, which is why there is a Bill of Rights in the first place.” I agree that it is not the judiciary’s place to deem it illegal. If that does become an issue, it should be brought up through the legislative process like any other bill. Otherwise, the judiciary branch is stretching the role it was intended to have by transforming into another law-making body.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Meg’s belief that the underlying principles of the constitution should be followed, rather than the exact wording, because the founding fathers could not have accounted for the kinds of issues we are facing today. For these reasons, strict interpretation of the constitution can hinder progress.
I find myself generally agreeing more with Breyer and Ginsberg. The constitution is more like a set of guidelines to me, and I think going by the exact wording would be stupid. We should interpret what's written rather than take it literally. As for the Second Amendment, I feel like if guns are properly obtained and whoever owns the gun isn't running around shooting at random people, then owning hand guns should be okay. Also, Scalia brings up some good points about the flag burning issue. If this country was built upon the idea of freedom and free speech, why should we, and why would we, restrict that freedom? If we did, we would be damning all that this country was built for.
ReplyDeleteI felt that Bailey brought up some good points:
ReplyDelete"The constitution was written over 200 hundred years ago. How could the framers have known how the constitution and bill of rights would apply to modern day. They could not have predicted the Internet, mass gun production, or privacy issues. The exact wording of the constitution does not necessarily fit to all scenarios now a day."
Like she said, the constitution was written so long ago. They didn't even know if this country would last as long as it has. How could we possibly think that we have to read and take the constitution as literally as possible?
In response to other comments, I think that when we are interpreting the Constitution, we need to consider both using strict interpretation of wording and broad underlying themes of the Consitution that the framers intended for us to interpret. I do not think I specifically agree with anyone's opinion. I would have to not agree with any one side or another, rather a happy medium in between. This seems almost like taking the easy road and not making a decision, but in this case I have made a decision not to interpret certain things specifically or broadly if that is the case.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ginsburg's opinion, especially when she said we should be striving for a more perfect union. Saying that "we the people" would mean very little today. Because it would go for only men, only white men, and certain classes. I feel that they are focused on how much times have changed. When the Founders wrote it, it was in the mind set of their time period for their community. Now with things like seperation of church and state and the ideologies and views of people today there should probably be not necessarily a revamp of the constitution but a idea of what we should be able to do and use the constitution as our outline.
ReplyDeleteIm not sure which side i agree with more for gun control. However i do believe in gun control. I think you should be able to be liscened a gun with in a certain age, but have the safety limitations.
I agree with Scalia's opinion. However maybe this should be more detailed to say actions also. But i also think actions like flag burning should be illegal because out of respect for the country. Allowing it in the United States i believe would be dumb, considering were supposed to be the powerful country setting the examples.
In response to Sammy Hemp
ReplyDeleteour freedoms can be restricted for our safety. Having complete free speech can be a dangerous thing. That's like when a bartender cuts off a person who has had too much, trying to save them (potentially from themselves).
I know it's a poor example but i couldn't think of much.
I also agree with Helen saying that the "why" of your actions is more important than the "what".
I agree with what Helen said in the beginning, that the Supreme Court needs to be more concerned with what drives the people to resort to flag burning rather than that a person burned a flag. The best way to cure an illness is to find the source of the infection, not by treating each individual symptom of the illness
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Brayer that that the government should be guided by the values outlined in the Constitution. Like he said, the founding fathers of the nation where unaware of the advancements of technology there would be, therefore some guidelines are hard to be applied to these new technologies; the best way to judge and decide what’s best to control these, is by using the values that the Constitution has left and apply to make new guidelines.
ReplyDeleteMany judges are different in this opinion however. It is true that there is no right or wrong answer, but judges are going to rule in their own opinion and interpretation of the Constitution. These opinions are going to differ, but these is what balances the government to more diversity. Furthermore, a very controversial subject in court in many cases is the second amendment. Like said before, the founding father did not know about the technology of today, and that there would be arms such as bombs, machine guns, and other high tech threatening arms. Does the second Amendment still apply to these new arms? In my opinion, people should have the right to bear arms, however regulations should still be applied to what kind of arms and have some sort of record and license of who has purchased arms. Moreover, in the Flag- burning issue I do agree with Scalia that burning a flag is constitutional according to the 1st Amendment promising peoples freedom of speech. Although it is very unpatriotic and disrespectful, it is not something that should be considered a crime. These is not something that it is up to the government or to any judge, these is something that it is protected in the Constitution.
I realize that every judge has their own opinion and it is well backed up to their own believes and morals. Brayer was always responding to every attack the interviewer made with dignity and respect; he packed up every thing he said with his interpretation of the Constitution. I liked the way he respects every opinion and challenges people to have their own opinions no matter if they differ from him. Furthermore, he is determined to his believes and rules with these values. In Scalia’s case, although my believes are less similar to his, I like the way he separates the opinion of a judge to the judge him or her self. Although I did not like him that much, he did make a good point about the flag-burning issue and is very determined as well to the ideologies of the Constitution.
In general, I definitely agree with Breyers( and Gihnsburg’s) idea that we should be guided by the values outlined in the constitution rather than follow it exactly. Times have changed since the constitution was written, and it seems a bit ridiculous to try to interpret those rules based on the time they were written rather than try to apply those rules to the present. I thought that Justice Gihnsburg brought up a great point when she said that the constitution is addressing “we the people”, but if you are going to be so literal about the interpretation of the constitution, then technically “we the people” would not apply to African Americans. It is not practical to try and think the way the framers did, as we now live in a different and more just world in which African Americans are part of our society, gay marriage is legal in some states, and ideas that were not specifically addressed in the Constitution are widely accepted. Justice Gihnsburg also pointed out that the Constitution is laying out guidelines to form “a more perfect union.” I think that what the framers meant by this was that they want to try and form a more perfect union between government and society. The government should grow and change as society does, and though Scalia made some very good points, it seems to me that he is striving for the perfect society, but that ideology is just not realistic. Our discussion in class about what defines loose construction of the Constitution (Gihnsburg and Breyer’s point of view) and what defines strict construction, such as Scalia’s point of view.
ReplyDeleteI can’t decide if I agree with Breyer or not on the second amendment issue. On one hand, it is every Americans right to be able to protect themselves. On the other hand, many Americans abuse this power, and there are much more dangerous weapons today then there were when the amendment was put in place.
I agree with Scalia’s point of view on the flag burning issue. Though I think that it is terrible and disgusting when people burn the flag, it is clearly stated that we reserve the right to free speech. I feel like if the court took away the right to burn the flag, it would upset more people than it would when people actually burn the flag.
Response to Dane:
ReplyDeleteI had the pretty much the same opinions as yours, but yours a lot more summarized. I do to agree in a little bit of each judge but fall more under the ideology of Brayer of judicial activism. Although is a very hard subject to rule, as in to try to decide what is the right ruling according to the Constitutions values, I do believe it is necessary for our advancing nation. The nation cannot stay behind with laws of hundredth years ago, times move on, and so the laws should. To Scalia’s point of the flag-burning, although it’s morally wrong, I do too believe Scalia made the right decision of following the Constitutions guidelines and follow it as part of our freedom of speech.
I agree with Bailey's comment when she said that there is no way that the framers could have possbly predicted inventions such as the internet, mass gun productions and other technoogical advances. I think that it is imporortant that Scalia recognizes what the framers might have done if they had lived in our time.I feel that the framers did their best to "form a more perfect union" for the time in which they lived.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I agree with the idea of the using the values to guide us as opposed to the exact wording. I think that it is easy to glean different interpretations from the same words—look at analyzing a poem, it generally means different things to different people, at different points in their life. The Constitution is no different. However, I do think that the tone of the poem is often unmistakable. The Constitution’s tone indicates its value. It repeatedly defends freedoms and allows for checks and balances.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, by looking at the intent of a passage as opposed to the letter of the law, as Breyer mentions, a different message can be revealed. If something was included to pacify a fraction of society that no longer exists (like slave owners), it no longer holds the same meaning.
The Constitution is our guidebook as a country, dictating what things we support and what we think is wrong. Taking it as Scalia suggests, only at face value, makes one miss a lot of the intention of the document. When changes over time are taken into account, the intention becomes paramount to the letter because each law is subject to circumstance. (ie: Murder is different than killing in self defense. With broad laws, I believe it is the judges’ discretion how to interpret a case in context.)
As per above, I am more in favor of Breyer’s explanation. The intent of the passage was to protect states from an impression of federal power, by giving them means of defense. Today, this concept is no longer relevant because a large national government is no longer the “great evil” it was once seen to be. I agree with Breyer that it should be a city by city decision. In DC’s case, there was rampant crime and a gun control law was passed to help control urban violence. In calmer areas of the country, perhaps a gun law isn’t effective. Neither of these cases is relevant to nationalizing state militias. Generally, gun laws allow some guns and protection, but prevent more technologically advanced guns, that the framers could not even conceive. I will concede, although, that hand gun bans are generally ineffective and it is gun education that shows the most effectiveness.
On the other hand, I do agree with Scalia regarding flag burning. The right of freedom of expression allows citizens to “express” themselves however they wish. Burning a flag is a powerful message and can be used as a tool of protest. Although it is indeed offensive, the value the framers dictated was to allow freedom to express. In the late 18th century, burning flags could be just as offensive as calling a British soldier a lobster, or dumping precious tea into an ocean.
Nonetheless, there are some cases where interpretation of the letter of the law can be heavily debated. Scalia offers the example of torture not being a punishment. I would argue that it is indeed negative reinforcement for not releasing information: training someone via punishment, and therefore covered in the Constitution’s discussion of punishment. Scalia thinks otherwise. However, most would agree that to torture someone is immoral. As a case can be made that torture is equivalent to punishment, and I’m sure there is more advanced reasoning available than my own, I believe that using the case based on interpretation to stop an immoral action would be in accordance with the values of the US.
Although I am generally in favor of an activist’s interpretation of the Constitution, I do so with the condition that these decisions help to initiate or modify legislation relating to a controversial ruling, before or after the case. Judges have very little power to enforce their decisions, however the cases do have the power of publicity. Even if they rule against a certain idea it can ignite discussion and support of new law. The cases, not the judges themselves, are what represent social change over time, and both the court’s decisions and the legislation written should reflect the change.
I agree with Austin's idea that the Supreme Court shouldn't become a second Congress. Their power to influence interpreation of law already influences past and future legislation significantly. I think that this power of interpretation is what is so essential.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that a majority of comments were in favor of judicial activism. I think this is typical of a younger generation, however it also signfies the trend toward support of social change that has erupted over the past 50 years. Each generation has their signficant shifts in public opinion and judicial decree: from segregation to integration, from prolife to prochoice, etc. I am curious to see what significant philosophies will undergo a shift within my own generation.
I agree with Breyer that we should be guided by the values of the constitution. He mentions how the constitution includes values that can be used in the world that is ever changing, which is a very good point and he proves this point by talking about the 2nd amendment and the reason why one of the framers, James Madison wrote it. I believe that this is indeed true due to the fact that newer technology is coming out even quicker now a day. When the framers wrote the constitution, they didn’t specify what each thing mean, so how are the justices going to interpret word by word? Although many people argue that many of the amendments should be taken as is, I believe that there should be limits to which we extend what is written in the constitution as well as what the constitution literally states. The framers wrote the constitution not knowing what new advancements, technology, morals, and social we, the newer generation of Americans, would be facing. The framers based the constitution on the problems that they faced under the Articles of Confederation; they based it on what was going on at that time period therefore why shouldn’t we be able to do so as well? By limiting some of the rights that the constitution has given us, we have also helped protect the well being of the people by interpreting the laws amended in the Constitution. I believe everyone appreciates that the right for the freedom of speech should be limited in which saying something that can endanger the well being of the people.
ReplyDeleteAnother example would be the right to bear arms. Breyer states how the wording of the 2nd amendment such as including “militias” implying how Madison, according to history, but now the circumstances have changed. I agree with him, the scope of how the framers viewed the right to bear arms. I don’t believe people would trust EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN with a gun. Our country has advanced in the weaponry, not many people can handle AK-47s or other guns. Such as how we can limit the right to freedom of speech, we can limit the right to bear arms. The constitution also states how the government should protect the well being of the people. I believe that regulating handguns or any guns in that matter is protecting the well being of Americans.
In another matter, as much as I dislike the idea of people not appreciating what they have in this country, I believe the people do have the right to burn the flag. It is part of their freedom of speech and protest. I remember talking about how national governments should be concerned with government issues and state governments should be concerned in moral issues. That right is protected, it is more of a moral issue, and how other Americans will look upon that person.
I'm going to have to agree with meg in that how a looser interpretation of the constitution is a lot better when it comes to today's issues. I definately agree in the part that deals with handguns. There needs to be a loose interpretation of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteI like how SR has compared the constitution to a poem, it is a good way to view this idea of Judicial Activism. It is correct that a new message can be revealed and that each person has their own interpretation of it. Although conservatives think they are interpreting the constitution word by word w/o expanding it or taking the value of it, aren't they interpreting the constitution in the way they see or think the framers were intending? I am sure they didn't know the exact purpose of each amendment that they wrote.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the way judge Scalia sees the constitution is the purest way to interpret the context because his ideal of originalism really relates to the original thought and ideals of the text. His comment saying the the constitution is suppose to make progress harder instead of the other way around really relates to this own ideal of originalism. His view on the flag burning issue does nothing but to make the constitution even better because his ideal is that if it is mentioned on the constitution then it must be right. I love the way that he personally hates the act but in reality as a judge he has to protect the right of freedom of expression. I agrre with him. Also his view on the Constitution is really a changer because alot of people may call him "close minded" but in reality his views might be liberal but if its not the constitution he cant really do anything. And personally i love that how he has taken such a strong stand against other ideals and just created his own. His vie to me as i said before really resembles the original goals of the creator of the text. I feel that individual laws shall be passed in states but when it comes to convey a change to the cosntittution we must first see if it is at all mentioned the in the text.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that right for a person to bear arms is an untouchable right. Since it is said in the cosntitutioon i believe that it was the creators intention that for us as American Citizens we mus have the RIGHT to bear arms. Yes we can install state laws and even federal laws preventing sales to bad people but we may never destroy that right since it is in the Constitution. Personally i dislike firearms but our consitution says for us as citizens to have the right to bear them so we better bear them.
I also agree with Dorian about our right to bear arms but to as well have regulations and control over them. The constitution says that we can bear them but we as citizens need to create a set of rules to prevent the mal-use of them. ALso his stand towards flag burning is true, it is a great disgrace to our forefathers to burn the flag but at the same time we need to respect our right to freedom of expression
ReplyDeleteIt is very obvious that Justice Stephen Breyer is a die hard liberal. However, he brings up a very good point when he talks about "values". Freedom, liberty, etc. are all "values". Overall, I agree more with Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. With all due respect, I think Justice Scalia is naive. He wants to do things the same way they were done over 200 years ago. Everything has changed, society has changed, people have changed, and people's beliefs have changed.
ReplyDeleteThis connects to our discussion about activism vs judicial restraint because it is a battle of ideologies and the "right" interpretation is vague and blurry. I agree to a certain extent with Justice Breyer's mindset on the right to bear arms. However, he may be overstepping his boundaries by banning them from Washington.
Although nobody may like it flag burning is an action done to get a message across. And that is protected by the freedom of speech. So in this case yes, I agree with Scalia.
I agree with Brandon in that the Framers did not know what would come about in the future. Airplanes, internet, what have you. However, I think that as brilliant men that they were they planned ahead. I do not think they would have only made a constitution that would be in perfect harmony with only their times. Which is why I agree with Justice Breyer. The Constitution should evolve as the people evolve in our nation. It should adapt and I believe that the Framers made it so that this were possible.
ReplyDeleteI would agree more with Justice Breyer that we should focus more on what the constitution implies instead of exactly what it says. I think the framers intended to create an open-ended constitution so that it could adapt to the future needs. Today, we are facing difficulties that the framers would of never thought of. Issues such as videos that show harmful things, like making a bomb, were not thought of by the framers, but people still have the right to free speech. Scalia wants to follow the Constitution word for word, but if we did this we would come to a lot of disagreements on things that were not specifically listed in the constitution. We need to adapt the constitution to our needs today and interpret it in a more broad way. As for the gun control issue, I agree again with Justice Breyer, the framers could of never predicted how much more harmful guns would become over the year. In the olden days many people had guns for protection because they lived in a rural environment. Today we live in a much more urban time and guns can easily get out of hand. People do have the right to bear arms, however I think the Supreme Court should do something to create more gun regulation. As for the flag burning, I agree with Scalia that it was very offensive, but the judges really can’t do anything about it. So as wrong as it may be, they do have the right to free speech and they will be allowed to keep doing it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meg and Bailey in that interpreting the constitution can really go either way and I believe that it really depends on the situation. Many things in the constitution have clearly been outdated, but simple things like freedom of speech still apply to today’s world. I think it ridiculous to say that we should only do one thing or the other. Maybe it would be better if the judges looked at different sections of the constitution with some of these views, instead of applying it to the whole constitution.
ReplyDelete