Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘originalist’

On the December 19, 2012 episode of the Agenda with Steve Paikin, Peter Beinart, former editor of the New Republic, openly declared that it doesn’t matter what the Framers of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had in mind when drafting it — or, by implication, the entire Constitution (at 12:15):

Steve Paikin: “But do you think that this is what the Framers had in mind, the kind of mass access to weapons that people have in the United States today?

“Peter Beinart: I’m not sure, frankly, it even really matters that much what the Framers had in mind.

For a faithful textualist and originalist interpretation of the Constitution, see my interview on Exposing Faux Capitalism with Judge Douglass Bartley.

Read Full Post »

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

Douglass Bartley, retired judge, author, and writer of the blog, Pastoral Republican: Reviving the Constitutionalism of the Jeffersonian Republic, is scheduled to be on Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb on November 4, 2012 from 1 to 3 PM Eastern.

This is one of my most anticipated interviews, as I have had a fondness for the principles expressed by the U.S. Constitution going back to my discovery of them 15 years ago.

Judge Bartley has published two volumes of his four-volume book, The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed: A Coroner’s Inquest, and is currently finishing the third volume.

I first came across Judge Bartley with my occasional frequenting of the U.S. Constitution forum on RonPaulForums.com and was heartened to see a former U.S.  judge advocating for a true originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

I’m looking forward to what I anticipate will be a robust discussion about the original intent of key passages and provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Read Full Post »

The Fifteen Steps to Corporate FeudalismI arranged the July 31, 2012 interview with Dennis Marker, author of Fifteen Steps to Corporate Feudalism, on Dr. Stan Monteith’s Radio Liberty (available for a limited time).

Dr. Stan differed with Marker on several points, as I do, including his use of the word democracy instead of republic, and his support for federal government spending beyond its originalist constitutional boundaries.

Overall, Dr. Stan agreed with most of Marker’s points, as I do.

For my July 15, 2012 interview with Marker, see here.

I previously arranged interviews for Dr. Walter Block and Dr. Peter Duesberg.

Read Full Post »

Robert Bork argues that competition law is fun...

In 1987, during his Supreme Court Justice nomination hearings, Judge Robert Bork said (starting at 03:40):

I cite to you the Legal Tender Cases. Scholarship suggests — these are extreme examples, admittedly — scholarship suggests that the Framers intended to prohibit paper money. Any judge who today thought he would go back to the original intent, really ought to be accompanied by a guardian rather than be sitting on a bench.

Ironically, he was deemed to be too conservative, and a right-wing judicial activist by his top detractors like Senator Joe Biden and Senator Ted Kennedy.

This demonstrates that even so-called originalist and conservative judges don’t intend to uphold their oath of office when it’s politically difficult to do so, and why change needs to come externally.

Read Full Post »

My email to Pastor David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution after his June 9, 2010 appearance on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith:

Pastor Whitney,

I heard your very educational presentation of the Fifth Amendment on today’s show with Dr. Stan.

You said that you read an opinion by Justice Scalia, who you say has written many good opinions in keeping with the Constitution, and that in it, he argued that Grand Juries are independent of the three branches of government.

You later said that those Justices who found in favor of the city of New London in Kelo v. New London (2005), finding that private property could be taken for non-public use, should be impeached for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution, specifically the Fifth Amendment in this case. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that.

Now, consider the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), where Justice Scalia upheld President Bush’s denial of the writ of habeas corpus to Mr. Hamdan.

Article I Section 9 of the Constitution includes:

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Given that:
1) The Constitution grants powers to, and limits powers of, the federal and state governments;
2) The privilege in question makes no mention of applying only to U.S. citizens, nor does the Bill of Rights;
3) There was no rebellion or invasion at the time;
4) Congress didn’t suspend the writ of habeas corpus through that provision;
5) The President takes a constitutional oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”;
6) Justice Scalia is a self-avowed “originalist;”

Do you agree that Justice Scalia should be impeached for his decision in that case, as you argued for those Justices who found in favor of the city of New London?

Regards,

Jason Erb

Read Full Post »