It seems that not all that long ago the constitution limited the govts actions significantly. If something directly contradicted the constitution it would be struck down, so the legislative and executive branches of govt generally tried to make things fit within the realm of a reasonable interpertation of the consitution. These days however, court decision after decision has deffered to national security rather than the constitution and allowed things that directly contradict, for example, the bill of rights. Given that it no longer seems to be doing any good, has the constitution outlived its usefulness?
The courts have been ignoring the Constitution for quite some time. Let's not pretend that judicial activism was invented by President Bush and his appointees.
hey, speaking as a UK resident, it can safely be said that when have the courts ignored the interests of the establishment/ the rich people? Here, they are well known for being in hock to the current gvt, so if yours is a political case, best have a few million supporters, otherwise your going down. SO certainly the constitution is useful, even if a bit to oidealistic, but hten it gives you something to live up to.
The stupid thing was written so vaguely that strict constructionism really never meant anything. It was never useful considering that judges pretty much do what they want anyway. Freedom of speech never really meant anything. There are too many examples of unprotected speech. In fact it not disimilar to the bible in its ability interpreted. What this really means is that it doesn't really say anything. Outside of setting a method for election, which has now been revised into oblivion, it has nothing really concrete.
It seems to me that in the past, interpertations of the constitution changed drastically, but nothing ever directly contradicted it, as is happening now.
The bill or rights isin't a part of the original Constitution. Some say that is were all the problems happened. The Federal goverment should have never had the power to take away freedom of speech exct. With the bill of rights it makes it look like it should have the power but never really be able to do it. Courts need to look at the philosophers that made the ideas that were used in the Constitution like John Locke.
During WW1, under Wilson the Espionage Act was put into effect, which allowed any dissenters to go to jail for criticizing the government during the war. The law has never been repealed, I don't know why the Bush administration hasn't made better use of it. It's perfectly legit, they could throw us all in jail if they wanted to by using the accumulated evidence on this forum. The only reason I could think of is the chance of appeal to the Supreme Court, and the chance that they'd rule it unconstitutional. But then there's the Patriot Act, so maybe I'm wrong. As for the Constitution, I feel that it is useful, and will continue to be useful, but that it needs some revision (2nd Ammendment). That it can be interpreted in so many different ways is a testament to its genius. I'd like to at least think that times have changed somewhat since the Revolutionary War.
i think I can answer that, since pollux and I are probably reading the same book. Apparently Congress passed it and Wilson signed it in june 1917.
