Will you help me start a public awareness campaign? "The Constitution ain't what it used to be"

Question

I think it's catchy and has an emotional hook. If you care, just post it in a question now and then.

Answer 1

It is what it used to be. What's changed are the interpretations of it.

Answer 2

Here are a couple of paragraphs from Robert Bork's classic "The Tempting of America." I have paraphrased Bork's words a little bit.

There exists among many judges and scholars a weary cynicism that often finds expression in the quotation of words attributed to Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." Hughes was hardly the first to have made the point. About 200 years earlier, in the year 1717, a clergyman named Bishop Hoadly said, "Whosoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, for all intents and purposes, and not the one who first wrote or spoke them." These statements are sometimes taken to ratify cynicism. They should not be. Nobody who knows anything about Hughes' career would assume that he meant power is all. It is crucial to bear in mind the difference between the reality of judicial power and the legitimacy or morality of the use of that power.

It is a truism, but is not anything MORE than a trusim, that, for all practical purposes, the constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Right or wrong, the statute you petitioned your legislature to enact has suddenly become void just because the Justices have said so. But behind that reality lies another fact, just as real, and one with normative meaning: there is a historic constituiton that was understood, by those who made it, to have a meaning of its own. That intended meaning has an existance independant of whatever the Justices have said. It is THAT meaning that the Justices ought to utter. If law is more than mere naked power, it was the originally intended meaning the judges had the moral duty to pronounce. Bishop Hoadly and Chief Justice Hughes, far from reconciling us to cynicism, emphasize the heavy responsibility judges bear. Power alone is not sufficient to produce legitimate AUTHORITY.
~~~~
And it is the sense of these words that I agree with the previous answers who have said that the Constitution isn't any different. It is the interpretations that have caused the Constitution to SEEM different than it used to be.

Answer 3

One problem with the campaign. Only one in five adults in America has ever read the document. Some of those who have read it take exception with the operative principle of judicial review first laid out by Chief Justice Marshall in his opinion for the majority in Marbury versus Madison:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void".

Answer 4

The Constitution is still the same as ever, it is the times and people that have changed. When it was written, it was fine but now there are too many gaps, and the Supreme Court is called upon to make decisions as to what was left out. If the founding fathers had had even the faintest idea of what would be happening in the 21st century, they would surely have filled in those gaps.

Answer 5

"needless to say which would be unconstitutional as is stands." Sorry, however the basis of your question is off base. it does not be unconstitutional for the Feds to apply their spending authority to influence coaching. If Congress tried to "take over" coaching, that would exceed the authority granted to them by employing the form. whether, below the Spending Clause, Congress has great authority to situation spending. college structures are unfastened to defy Congress, yet in many situations Congress gets what they want because of the fact faculties want the money!! perfect, ft

Answer 6

I would be willing to participate in this venture. There are SO many Americans that have NO idea that their Constitutional rights have been under steady attack in the quiet of night, practically while they slept. One day, you are guaranteed the right to habeus corpus and the very next day you are not. The worst thing about it is that your right was taken away in about the least democratic way possible. Without your consent and without your opinion.

Answer 7

Of course the Constitution is not what it used to be. The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times.

Do you miss the 3/5th clause? I sure don't.

Answer 8

Create a blog at yahoo I will give an example

Answer 9

nope, I believe the Constitution is just fine.
What needs to happen is that judges need to stop trying to interpret it to meet their own ends. (see Roe vs Wade)

Answer 10

after 2008, WE WILL REFERR TO THE PRE BUSH AND POST BUSH MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION.