Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

Note to officials everywhere....keep #in with our Constitution and you are going to find out how much the average American cherishes the document that has made this country great. This document is of the people and for the people in case you judges slept through the class that covered the Constitution. It is designed to control the government NOT to limit the freedom of the people and it is timeless. What worked in 1780 will work in 2380 as long as we don't allow the communists hiding in the government to "interpret" the simple English document.

a reply to: xuenchen

Obviously this guy is mentally unstable and has made similar statements in the past, according to the article.

Your attempt to associate this with or compare it to Obama is nonsense, though. You turned what would have been a good thread and a good find into yet another annoying hitpiece on Obama.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Deluxe comments coming from a U.S. Federal Judge about the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) says he sees no reason for judges to study the Constitution !!

He claims it's too old and not up with today's culture.

He sees no value in studying any of it.

Let me guess.... He is a Democrat progressive

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: xuenchen

Hmmm...Appointed by President Ronald Reagan!...That liberal bastard!

By modern day conservative standards, Reagan was very liberal. Numerous tax increases, spending increases, gun control, abortion, amnesty. Reagan would be a democrat today.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: xuenchen
Deluxe comments coming from a U.S. Federal Judge about the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) says he sees no reason for judges to study the Constitution !!

He claims it's too old and not up with today's culture.

He sees no value in studying any of it.

Let me guess.... He is a Democrat progressive

LOL

He was a Conservative Reagan Appointee...

Maybe references to Reagan are outdated and not up to today's cultural and technology standards.

a reply to: Indigo5

And obviously became contaminated by the Chicago political atmosphere.

a reply to: introvert

The Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT have an expiration date. They are the supreme law of the land in the USA. Get on board or get out. Nobody said you have to be here.

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

The Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT have an expiration date. They are the supreme law of the land in the USA. Get on board or get out. Nobody said you have to be here.

You do understand that the Founders included the process' needed to change the constitution as needed, right? They knew it would need to evolve and what this judge is speaking of is how the constitution needs to "evolve".

Does understanding that make me, or this judge, some sort of traitor?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Maybe references to Reagan are outdated and not up to today's cultural and technology standards.

They are just wholely inaccurate to say the least.

The report also said that 75 percent of ATF prosecutions "were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations."

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report

en.wikipedia.org...

The FOPA was created to 'fix' the Democrats Gun Control Act of '68.

But they got their revenge with the post 86 gun ban.

Reagan was hardly a poster child for gun control.

Among the reforms intended to loosen restrictions on gun sales were the reopening of interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, legalization of ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition, and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal

Reagan got it wrong, and right at the same time.

a reply to: introvert

Nope but a complete disregard for the document does.

Keep the Constitution,fire the judge.2nd.

originally posted by: introvert
Here is what he said:

And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about. In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.

I'd say he actually has a point.

www.slate.com... ed_more_practical_experience.html?wpsh_all_mob_tw_top

i have to agree, the constitution was written over 200 years ago when only white christian men had any real rights, a lot has changed since then. its 2016 and while many things in the constitution are "timeless" remember the one true constant in this world is change. now i'm not saying get rid of the the constitution entirely but i am saying it should not be the end all be all piece of paper that dictates america for as long as it exists.

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

Nope but a complete disregard for the document does.

What disregard has he shown as a judge? Has his personal opinion affected his decisions?

a reply to: abe froman

is that true!

originally posted by: introvert
Here is what he said:

And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about. In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.

I'd say he actually has a point.

www.slate.com... ed_more_practical_experience.html?wpsh_all_mob_tw_top

So you admit that you are a fascist.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: introvert
Here is what he said:

And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about. In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.

I'd say he actually has a point.

www.slate.com... ed_more_practical_experience.html?wpsh_all_mob_tw_top

So you admit that you are a fascist.

What part of that post indicates I am a fascist?

originally posted by: MrSpad
If you actually read what he says, he has a valid point. He is saying the Courts use the Constitution and its archaic vagueness and interpret it through modern ideals. For example, nobody has to be in a well regulated militia to own a gun, why? Because the Courts said so. Where are gay rights in the Constitution? No where but, like with guns the courts use modern ideals to interpret it. He is saying you wasting your time studying the history of the Constitution because the Founders had no clue what the future would bring. Because when it comes down to it, the Courts are pretty much making it up as they go and not trying to guess what somebody in the 1700s would think of Abortion, Gay rights, assault rifles, the death of militias in modern warfare etc. Washington himself ignored the Constitution and let the courts down the road catch up with him and reinterpret it to fit the needs of the times. Lets face it the founders had no clue about the future and we have been pretty much making it up as we go reinterpreting the Constitution to fit our needs as we go.

Gay rights are expressly written in the 14th Amendment. Since this guy chose not to use any qualifications he is apparently against the idea that everyone, regardless of their personal state as a being, has a right to due process of law whenever dealing with any government agency that would depose them of their rights.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The supreme court literally just used that outdated document to better understand how law is applied. In simple terms, the guy is an idiot, and anyone who agrees...well you figure it out.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: introvert

" Do you believe his act of voicing his opinion (free speech) should lead to him being taken off his bench? "

If his Personal Thoughts Conflict with his Ability to be Far and Balanced concerning his Court Decisions , then yes , he should Resign as a First Choice , then if he refuses , take Him to Court .

So basically any judge or elected official that doesn't agree with your personal beliefs should be impeached?

Should a police officer who swore he would uphold the law who then publicly proclaims that the law should be ignored be allowed to keep his job too?

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: introvert

" Do you believe his act of voicing his opinion (free speech) should lead to him being taken off his bench? "

If his Personal Thoughts Conflict with his Ability to be Far and Balanced concerning his Court Decisions , then yes , he should Resign as a First Choice , then if he refuses , take Him to Court .

So basically any judge or elected official that doesn't agree with your personal beliefs should be impeached?

Should a police officer who swore he would uphold the law who then publicly proclaims that the law should be ignored be allowed to keep his job too?

Only if he fails to do his job, should be be fired. He is more than welcome to his right to free speech.