Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Who said this? and What will this mean for us?

In my dialogue with Bruce Ackerman, I will be arguing for the importance of focusing quite narrowly on the Constitution in 2020 -- the founding document as it is interpreted in courts. I will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. This idea, sometimes masquerading under the name of originalism or strict construction, represents a form of judicial hubris; it is bad history and bad law. It should be exposed and rejected as such.
For 2020, what should be asserted instead is a form of judicial minimalism, one that also gives the democratic process wide room to maneuver. The appropriate path is not charted by Roe v. Wade; it is charted instead by West Coast Hotel, upholding minimum wage legislation, and Katzenbach v. Morgan, allowing Congress to ban literacy tests.

Answer Question

Asked by Crissy1213 at 6:54 PM on Sep. 10, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 17 (4,121 Credits)
Answers (15)
  • Moderates and liberals should not want the Supreme Court to march on the road marked out by the Warren Court. They should celebrate instead rulings that defer to Congress and that invalidate legislation rarely and only through narrow, unambitious rulings, akin to the Court's recent decision in the Hamdi case.
    Minimalists insist on a democratic conception of the free speech principle and also on procedural safeguards for those deprived of their liberty. But they reject any Citizen's Agenda if it is understood as part of constitutional law proper.
    In other words, it is exceedingly important to distinguish between the Constitution in 2020 and what would be good in 2020.

    Answer by Crissy1213 at 6:54 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • UnlIke Ackerman, I do not favor "a political coalition that will ultimately be in a position to name Supreme Court justices who will repudiate The Slaughterhouse Cases, and give constitutional meaning to the 'privileges' and 'immunities' of citizenship that make sense in the twenty-first century."
    One qualification is that the United States does not only have a Constitution; it also has a set of constitutive commitments, beyond mere policies but without a formal constitutional status.

    Answer by Crissy1213 at 6:55 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights was an effort to establish several such commitments, including, above all, decent opportunity and minimal security. I will briefly discuss the value of seeing the Second Bill of Rights as part of the nation's self-definition in 2020 -- though not of seeing it as part of our formal constitution. The insistence on the Second Bill of Rights is best regarded as part of democratic deliberation, not as part of constitutional law.

    Answer by Crissy1213 at 6:55 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • Sorry about the copy paste the link keeps expiring.

    Answer by Crissy1213 at 6:57 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • I believe that was Cass Sunstein> Right? That's from way back (insert sarcasm) in 2005.

    Answer by PaceMyself at 7:12 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • * PaceMyself

    YAY!!! you win!


    Answer by Crissy1213 at 7:15 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • Yes people, this is Cass Sunstein speaking to ACS Mar 22 2005!!!! Yay meet you spanking new REGULATORY "Adviser"!!!!! Fresh from being voted in YESTERDAY!!!!

    Answer by Crissy1213 at 7:18 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • What to you mean by your question? Us or USA? Why don't you post your cut/paste rampling's in your cafemom journal section.


    Answer by Anonymous at 7:19 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

    Cass Sunstien said it. They are going to argue that the "orginal document" or The US Constitution is out dated and basically "unconstitutional" and that the FDR second bill of rights is the new standard limiting our right to say we have rights. How did they ever get the US Supreme Court to hear this case. The highest court whose sole purpose is to deem laws Constitional or not is going to stand in judgement of the very document they took an oath to uphold. Isn't that unconstitutional?

    Answer by jesse123456 at 7:20 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

  • it is us as in the people, you and me. Not the U.S.. Oh and I apologized for the copy paste issue the link wont post right. So why don't you go troll somewhere else. ANON

    Answer by Crissy1213 at 7:21 PM on Sep. 10, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.