Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vzog2QWiVaA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."

As Egypt prepares to write a new constitution, Ginsburg, who was traveling during the court's break to speak with legislators and judges in Egypt as well as Tunisia, spoke to students at Cairo University, encouraging them to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the "exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state."


In a long interview with a reporter who asked her to explain the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and how it would be applied in today's Egypt, Ginsburg suggested with pride that "we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world, and it starts out with three words, 'We, the people.'"

Ginsburg also extolled several aspects of the document, particularly the separation of powers, the concept of checks and balances and an independent judiciary that can't have its salaries diminished if it rules a law enacted by Congress as unconstitutional.

But asked about models for the Egyptian people, Ginsburg said Egyptians "should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II."

She then pointed not only to South Africa's constitution, but to Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Why not take advantage of what is else there in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," Ginsburg added.

Indeed, Ginsburg's comments are not foreign to her overall philosophy. The justice has previously stated that she weighs foreign law as well as U.S. law when forming a legal opinion.

"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," Ginsburg told an audience at the American Society of International Law in April 2005.

Ginsburg told the Egyptian interviewer that she can't dispense advice for Egyptian society about how to set up its constitution, nor can she comment on a document that isn't written or in force yet.

But she said looking at the Federalist Papers -- essays written by the drafters to expound upon the articles before they were ratified by the states -- it's clear that a discussion must be held by all members of the country. She also suggested that a constitution is only as good as the people who live by it.




Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/#ixzz1llZZGReV

[Rohirrim]

What's the problem? Ginsburg is right.

[alkemical]

http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/the-waning-influence-of-the-united-states-constitution/

The Waning Influence Of The United States Constitution

[Rohirrim]

By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” (ibid)

Imagine if some American politician said that today? They'd be hanged. Ha!

Anyway, Citizens United pretty much moved us to the back row of constitutional governments. It's a declaration of sell-out.

[Fedaykin]

Why use the original version instead of one of the refined versions?

Would you base a new car on the Model T?

[alkemical]

Why use the original version instead of one of the refined versions?

Would you base a new car on the Model T?

I'd take a warthog from halo.

[Arkie]

She also suggested that a constitution is only as good as the people who live by it.

She is right.

http://cryptclidiotsavants.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/constitutional-toilet-paper.jpg

[sirhcyennek81]

By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” (ibid)

Imagine if some American politician said that today? They'd be hanged. Ha!

Anyway, Citizens United pretty much moved us to the back row of constitutional governments. It's a declaration of sell-out.


Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man. But even brilliant men can be wrong from time to time; his stance on the French Revolution and it being a "good thing" being one of them.

I find it completely ridiculous that a US SC Justice uses foreign law to interpret the constitutionality of American law.

:Broncos:

[Fedaykin]

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man. But even brilliant men can be wrong from time to time; his stance on the French Revolution and it being a "good thing" being one of them.

I find it completely ridiculous that a US SC Justice uses foreign law to interpret the constitutionality of American law.

:Broncos:

What's your stance on allowing foreigners to have a large say in our elections?

[Fedaykin]

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man. But even brilliant men can be wrong from time to time; his stance on the French Revolution and it being a "good thing" being one of them.

I find it completely ridiculous that a US SC Justice uses foreign law to interpret the constitutionality of American law.

:Broncos:

Why wasn't the french revolution a good thing? Because of the goal or because of the methods?

[alkemical]

..you better run better run..

[Rohirrim]

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man. But even brilliant men can be wrong from time to time; his stance on the French Revolution and it being a "good thing" being one of them.

I find it completely ridiculous that a US SC Justice uses foreign law to interpret the constitutionality of American law.

:Broncos:

How much of our law is based on British common law? Or Roman law? Or Greek?

[alkemical]

How much of our law is based on British common law? Or Roman law? Or Greek?

..or....God?

[Garcia Bronco]

What's the problem? Ginsburg is right.

Ginsburg is a drunk that's only on the court because she has a vagina

[Garcia Bronco]

By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” (ibid)

Imagine if some American politician said that today? They'd be hanged. Ha!

Anyway, Citizens United pretty much moved us to the back row of constitutional governments. It's a declaration of sell-out.

Jefferson edited all his letters before his death. Who knows what he actually said when he said what he said.

[DBruleU]

How much of our law is based on British common law? Or Roman law? Or Greek?

Uh, I don't think that's what he meant. Are we to judge here in the United States based on what some foreign nations law says? No. We judge it based on OUR laws.

What you're asking is completely different than what he said.

[sirhcyennek81]

How much of our law is based on British common law? Or Roman law? Or Greek?


That is a disingenuous argument. Why not Babylonian or Sumerian? How about Caananite or Sharia law?

Why would an American judge determine the constitutionality of an American law using precedents found in other countries? That makes no sense. Using foreign law to craft American law? Fine. The legislature can do that, and then the court can actually do its job; namely determining if the law fits OUR constitution.

:Broncos:

[Bob]

Ginsburg doesnt use the US Constitution right now in America -- no wonder she would take this stance.

[BroncoLifer]

By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” (ibid)

Imagine if some American politician said that today? They'd be hanged. Ha!

Anyway, Citizens United pretty much moved us to the back row of constitutional governments. It's a declaration of sell-out.

Emanations from penumbras kicked things off long before Citizen's United.

[pricejj]

I find it completely ridiculous that a US SC Justice uses foreign law to interpret the constitutionality of American law.

:Broncos:

Couldn't agree more.

[Rohirrim]

That is a disingenuous argument. Why not Babylonian or Sumerian? How about Caananite or Sharia law?

Why would an American judge determine the constitutionality of an American law using precedents found in other countries? That makes no sense. Using foreign law to craft American law? Fine. The legislature can do that, and then the court can actually do its job; namely determining if the law fits OUR constitution.

:Broncos:

I guess you're kidding, right? If everything was spelled out in the constitution we wouldn't need a supreme court. The argument about what constitutes liberty, or freedom, or rights, is a philosophical argument that has been going on for centuries. Like Ginsburg points out, the ideas are still evolving, and they're popping up all over the world. America has not cornered the market. In fact, right now we could use a little input our own selves. IMO, we're ****ing up.

America is getting to the point where it can no longer determine the difference between liberty and economics. Hell, many believe that liberty is capitalism. We've got a presidential candidate whose running on the idea of turning the government into a business.

I could just see Madison, Jefferson and the other Founders gathered around saying, "Okay, we're starting a business. We'll call it, America, Inc." Listening to some on the Right, you'd think that's what happened.

Some even think the constitution is a closed loop. Carved in stone. Originalists. It's a dead document. Really? So why did the Founders include a process for amending and changing it?

[alkemical]

USA is a corporation, not a country:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0

[Spider]

Uh, I don't think that's what he meant. Are we to judge here in the United States based on what some foreign nations law says? No. We judge it based on OUR laws.

What you're asking is completely different than what he said.

Here is he bottom line of all of this , The constitution is only as good as the people enforcing it , you see Egypt now , their leaders , do you really trust them with a constitution like ours ? Do you have faith it will be enforced and run like ours ? I dont , so I wouldn suggest they become us right now , we been doing this for over 200 years , they need to start out small and work on it like we did ......You just dont become a democracy over night , the people have to be introduced to it , learn the pit falls as well as the perks , you just cant turn people lose ........

[Spider]

That is a disingenuous argument. Why not Babylonian or Sumerian? How about Caananite or Sharia law?

Why would an American judge determine the constitutionality of an American law using precedents found in other countries? That makes no sense. Using foreign law to craft American law? Fine. The legislature can do that, and then the court can actually do its job; namely determining if the law fits OUR constitution.

:Broncos:

huh ?

[Arkie]

I guess you're kidding, right? If everything was spelled out in the constitution we wouldn't need a supreme court. The argument about what constitutes liberty, or freedom, or rights, is a philosophical argument that has been going on for centuries. Like Ginsburg points out, the ideas are still evolving, and they're popping up all over the world. America has not cornered the market. In fact, right now we could use a little input our own selves. IMO, we're ****ing up.

America is getting to the point where it can no longer determine the difference between liberty and economics. Hell, many believe that liberty is capitalism. We've got a presidential candidate whose running on the idea of turning the government into a business.

I could just see Madison, Jefferson and the other Founders gathered around saying, "Okay, we're starting a business. We'll call it, America, Inc." Listening to some on the Right, you'd think that's what happened.

Some even think the constitution is a closed loop. Carved in stone. Originalists. It's a dead document. Really? So why did the Founders include a process for amending and changing it?

We have legal rights and inalienable rights. The legal rights can be amended, but the inalienable rights(life, liberty, and property) were supposed to be preserved or "carved in stone" to protect us from ****ing up and ending up back at square one before the revolution. Part of liberty is capitalism or the free market, but not the cronyism that's been building up over hundreds of years.

[Rohirrim]

I think the entire field of politics can be boiled down into one question: How much can you trust the average person to make conscious, rational, informed decisions that don't infringe on the rights of others?

After all, if you could trust that every human being would operate on that principle, you wouldn't need laws, or cops, or courts, or armies. We have governments because we are crazy primates. When we stop acting like crazy primates and start acting like conscious beings, we can get rid of governments.

[Rohirrim]

We have legal rights and inalienable rights. The legal rights can be amended, but the inalienable rights(life, liberty, and property) were supposed to be preserved or "carved in stone" to protect us from ****ing up and ending up back at square one before the revolution. Part of liberty is capitalism or the free market, but not the cronyism that's been building up over hundreds of years.

How do you define life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Property was Locke's idea, and wasn't included in the equation. Hell, we've legislated how to take life. War. Punishment. Assassination. Liberty? We locked up the mentally ill for years. When it gets down to implementation on the ground, a society really has to struggle with its principles. If society wants to build a highway, but Joe Blow doesn't want a highway, should he pay taxes that go to building that highway anyway? Your principles can be pure, but implementation can me a mofo. ;D

[Arkie]

I think the entire field of politics can be boiled down into one question: How much can you trust the average person to make conscious, rational, informed decisions that don't infringe on the rights of others?

After all, if you could trust that every human being would operate on that principle, you wouldn't need laws, or cops, or courts, or armies. We have governments because we are crazy primates. When we stop acting like crazy primates and start acting like conscious beings, we can get rid of governments.

Nothing wrong with laws or government itself if we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. But, in reality, men make the laws, so it's inevitable that we are ruled by men. I like the idea of having certain basic rights that can't be taken away. That was what the founders had in mind.

BTW, I trust the average person over the average politician to make moral decisions.

[Rohirrim]

Nothing wrong with laws or government itself if we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. But, in reality, men make the laws, so it's inevitable that we are ruled by men. I like the idea of having certain basic rights that can't be taken away. That was what the founders had in mind.

BTW, I trust the average person over the average politician to make moral decisions.

I don't know about that. Like Captain Jack Sparrow said, "Me, I'm dishonest, and you can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you want to watch out for, 'cause you can never predict if they're going to do something incredibly stupid." ;D

[alkemical]

"An honest politician is a national calamity" - RAW

[sirhcyennek81]

I guess you're kidding, right? If everything was spelled out in the constitution we wouldn't need a supreme court. The argument about what constitutes liberty, or freedom, or rights, is a philosophical argument that has been going on for centuries. Like Ginsburg points out, the ideas are still evolving, and they're popping up all over the world. America has not cornered the market. In fact, right now we could use a little input our own selves. IMO, we're ****ing up.

America is getting to the point where it can no longer determine the difference between liberty and economics. Hell, many believe that liberty is capitalism. We've got a presidential candidate whose running on the idea of turning the government into a business.

I could just see Madison, Jefferson and the other Founders gathered around saying, "Okay, we're starting a business. We'll call it, America, Inc." Listening to some on the Right, you'd think that's what happened.

Some even think the constitution is a closed loop. Carved in stone. Originalists. It's a dead document. Really? So why did the Founders include a process for amending and changing it?


It is not her job to use foreign law to determine if American law is constitutional. That's backwards. If congress wants to use foreign law to create American law, fine. They can and should do that, especially if the foreign law had some kind of benefit. Then if the law gets to the point where a court needs to decide if the law is constitutional, the SC can then decide if it fits into OUR constitution.

And I am not a proponent of a "dead document". It is not. It is also not a living, breathing entity that is as hard to decipher as smoke from the oracle of delphi. The issue is interpreting meaning into it that is not there, and using precedents from Zimbabwe to validate nonsensical rulings. If you want the constitution to say something, agitate for it and attempt to make it an amendment. That's how it works. Not use a judge to decide this is what the US consitution says, because the constitution of Belgium says this and this.

:Broncos:

[Arkie]

The only way a monopoly should exist is by creating higher quality products at lower prices, and that would be a very difficult accomplishment in a free market where everybody has equal rights. The cronyism really began before the Federal Reserve during the railroading boom. In a free market, the goal is to create the highest quality at the lowest price to survive. Once the government began subsidizing these railroads by the mileage, the goal was to create as much railroad possible with cheaper materials and unnecessary routes. The age of the robber barons and cronyism really started to gain momentum. The goal of the shortest possible route with the highest quality materials changed to longer routes with cheaper materials, and they were poorly built because speed was more important than quality. Everybody loses except the 1%ers. Of course, we lost much more freedom later with the private central banking monopoly inflating our money at one end (the stealth tax on the poor) and the government stealing a portion of our income at the other. Both are ways to raise revenue for the growing federal government and their never-ending departments of control. This once proud Republic is now more of a plutocracy. We’re supposed to be a government of laws, not men. But men keep changing the laws, so we are back to square one, and it’s like when it was unpatriotic to dis Mother England.