tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post7514084599677706038..comments2023-07-20T02:54:39.833-06:00Comments on lybberty.com: A Brief Note On Constitutional InterpretationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-3391103360281355242008-04-02T10:56:00.000-06:002008-04-02T10:56:00.000-06:00May one who does not hold a Ph.D. in the field of ...May one who does not hold a Ph.D. in the field of history correctly refer oneself as a historian?<BR/><BR/>Barring recognition as such from the larger professional body of historians, I don't believe this form of self-identification is appropriate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-75311097625886851502008-03-31T02:03:00.000-06:002008-03-31T02:03:00.000-06:001. Please define "judicial activists."2. Ours is a...1. Please define "judicial activists."<BR/><BR/>2. Ours is a common law jurisprudence. Judicial precedent is law. When constitutional questions arise, judges decide them by interpreting the Const. These decisions then become binding law (the extent of their authority depends on the court). It is impossible to interpret the Constitution without reference to these binding judicial decisions (doctrine of stare decisis).<BR/><BR/>3. Regarding slavery, I am surprised that you did not adopt Frederick Douglas's strict constructionist/semi-originalist take on the subject. <BR/> For example, Frederick Douglas stated, “I ... deny that the Constitution guarantees the right to hold property in man.” Frederick Douglass, Speech, The Constitution of the United States: Is it Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?, in 2 The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass: Pre-Civil War Decade, 1850-1860, supra note 3, at 468. See also Frederick Douglass, Position of the Government Toward Slavery, in 3 The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass: Pre-Civil War Decade, 1850-1860, supra note 3, at 104, 108 (Douglass states that “[i]n a moral and humane point of view, the conduct of our Government towards the few slaves coming within their power, would be a disgrace to savages.”<BR/><BR/>Between 1849 and 1860, Frederick Douglass switched his views on whether the Constitution represented a pro-slavery document. In 1849, the progressive Douglass believed “as I have ever ..., that the original intent and meaning of the Constitution (the one given to it by the men who framed it, those who adopted, and the one given to it by the Supreme Court of the United States) makes it a pro-slavery instrument - such ... [as] one ... I cannot bring myself to vote under, or swear to support.” Frederick Douglass, The Constitution and Slavery, in 1 The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass: Early Years, 1817-1849 352-53 (Philip S. Foner ed., 1950). In a second statement in 1849, Douglass stated, “What ... we would be understood to mean now, is simply this-that the Constitution of the United States, standing alone, and construed only in the light of its letter, without reference to the opinions of the men who framed and adopted it, or to the uniform, universal and undeviating practice of the nation under it, from the time of its adoption until now, is not a pro-slavery instrument.” Id. at 361-62. Here, Douglass, without reference to the opinions of the slaveholders who would control the states in which slavery was practiced, rejected the real subtext of the Framers. In a formalistic manner, Douglass advanced a view that the authority to enslave was beyond the power of the states to impose under the “letter” of the Constitution. <BR/><BR/><BR/>[see link for text of his speech]. <BR/>http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?<BR/>document=1128Chris and Mari Spikerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13435313631107396009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-68923515929552057892008-03-31T01:47:00.000-06:002008-03-31T01:47:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chris and Mari Spikerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13435313631107396009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-13030140516363319402008-03-30T16:10:00.000-06:002008-03-30T16:10:00.000-06:00"slavery foremost among those0--"Please delete the..."slavery foremost among those0--"<BR/><BR/>Please delete the extra 0 found herein. Did you think I would let it slip?<BR/><BR/>And for the record, I agree with you.Wendlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05491603181404311454noreply@blogger.com