Comments about ‘Uphold the Constitution’

"To me, that's grounds for impeachment and removal from office."

Fortunately, Mr. Nielsen, your rather extreme point of view is but one in this diverse country, so none of us gets to dictate our opinion or form gestapos to hunt down and remove those who disagree with us. To think that the US Constitution is the only valid way of setting up a democracy, or that every nation and people on earth should be just as we are is arrogant and nationalistic. The Constitution was drafted over 200 years ago and other nations might find ways to improve upon it for their people and circumstance.

Regardless of your religious opinion, these men were not gods and their words are not scripture.

Justice Ginsburg's comment does not constitute a failure to uphold the Constitution. She was not advocating removing or rewriting it in our nation, she was suggesting that other countries can find their own model. Be careful with starting witch hunts.

"As if we didn't have enough opposition to deal with in Washington, it seems that the Supreme Court is also turning its back on the Constitution (and those who believe in its validity)..."

Translation - "The government is operating, and the Supreme Court is supporting them, in making decisions that I disagree with."

Justice Ginsburg's comments must be making conservatives happy. They can take an honest statement and put whatever meaning they want to it. She was not saying our Constitution is bad or that we should abolish it. Certainly she "honor(s), uphold(s) and sustain(s) that venerated document" everyday of her life and she knows more about it than almost anyone in the nation.

Her comment was to suggest that in this day and age a more contemporary document, like the South African Constitution, might better serve a nation. She should know, she is entrusted to interpret that 200+ year old document and apply it to conditions that didn't exist when it was written. Afterall, didn't the original Constitution define slaves as 3/5 of a person? And isn't there a Bill of Rights and 17 additional amendments that were added after it was adopted? And haven't there been many other attempts to amend it throughout our history? So who is claiming the original was perfect?

Justice Ginsburg was simply stating that when an opportunity presents itself, people should make the best of it. That's all.

Amen, Emajor and ECR. Amen.

Mr. Nielsen is correct. No judge sitting on the Supreme Court should tell the world that the South African Constitution is superior to the Constitution of the United States. Compare the two Constitutions. Our Constitution is one of "negative rights". It limits the government. The power is held by the people, not by the government. Rights belong to the people, not to the government. The South African Constitution has "positive rights". The government holds rights and transfers those rights to the people.

In America, we have clearly stated that our Creator gave us unalienable rights. We, the people, hold those rights.

In South Africa, their constitution reverses the order of things. The government is all powerful.

If Ms. Ginsburg thinks that the government should be all powerful, she should not be sitting on OUR Supreme Court.

The Constitution is under severe attack by a vast conglomeration of left wing extremists. This attack, which has long come from lower level members of Congress, is now coming directly from the Executive Office and even the Judiciary.

It was apparently not enough for the courts to abolish school prayer and remove restrictions on obscenity and violent video games. The courts are no determined to denigrate the Founding Fathers and throw out the very Constitution they established.

It is time for the ignorant masses to wake up and pay attention before it is too late. If the left wing extremists are not removed from power, America will become just another European-style post-Christian welfare state with a ruined economy and no sense of morality.

Ginsburg, by her previous actions and rulings, had already shown us she holds the US constitution, which she has sworn to uphold and protect, in contempt. her comments in Egypt should surprise no one.

Maybe she should spend more time studying OUR constitution and not the South African.

Emajor,
you are partially correct, those who wrote the constitution were not gods, but the document they produced was divinely inspired. But aside from that, there is a well established method for adjusting our constitution to changing times. The amendment process works.

Her comments that SA's constitution is BETTER than ours, does not, as you suggest, merely say other countries can find what works for best for them, it says she thinks theirs is BETTER than ours. Which proves another point, liberals do not believe in American exceptionalism.

Why are there 27 amendments to a document that was divinely inspired and should be used by all others?

I honestly didn't know anything about the south african constitution until this issue came up, and I still don't know much..however,this letter and those on this thread criticizing Justice Ginsberg display a classic example of nationalism..not patriotism. Nationalism is fueld by hubris, patriotism by humility. The founding fathers were humble if anything. They borrowed, copied, and created, in order to write our constitution, and even then knew it wasn't perfect and would need correcting.

Most on this thread who are criticizing the Justice would fully approve an amendment to our constituion that defined marriage. Isn't that act by itself admitting this constituion isn't perfect. That's all the Justic is saying. Ours isn't perfect and if you are starting from scratch you might look at a constituion that had the ability to incorporate into it's first draft modern democratic principles learned by other nations through centuries of struggle and blood shed, and put your own stamp on those principles.

South African constituional principles: Human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms.
Non-racialism and non-sexism.
Supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law.
Universal adult suffrage, a national common voters roll, regular elections and a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.

The other point modern democracies have learned..a point many Americans haven't accepted yet..is if..again if..you want to have a democratic nation, the diversity of the modern world (races, religions, values, life styles, languages etc.) require a strong national government in order to assure the adherence to democratic and equality principles, thus the positive nature of governmental responsibilities.

Justice Ginsberg's 20-minute interview on Egyptian TV is available on YouTube. During the interview she is effusive in her praise of the US Constitution.

It was a remarkably thoughtful exchange of ideas, and I wish the TV interviewers we have in this country would be as intelligent asking questions as was the Egyptian journalist who interviewed Ginsberg.

It would be helpful if folks would take the time to understand Ginsberg's remark that Egyptians may need to look beyond the US Constitution in the context of everything that was discussed about Egypt's future.

But to the hard right wingers around here, I guess they'd have preferred she simply shouted "USA! USA! We're Number One!" at the interviewer.

Question to
Mr.Richard Nielsen [the letter writer]
Mike Richards
John Charity Spring
lost in DC
...and all the other right-wingers who will chime in later today....

On one hand you argue that the Consitution is the unfallible final word, and in NOT a Living Document.

Then you Flip-Flop by supporting Sen. Mike Lee and his quests to monkey with the ever so perfect U.S. Constitution with the stupid "Balanaced Budget Ammendments" and "Federal Marriage Ammendments".

Which is it?
Show some Integrity.
You either leave it alone and Uphold it, or Trample it with all your silly changes.

BTW - Your hypocriacy is driving the rest of crazy.

2012 America isn't the 1700s America in which the Founders envisioned a small agrarian republic where blacks were owned as property and not thought of as human beings and where women couldn't own property or vote.

The times change. There's no way the founders could have envisioned things like the internet, nuclear weapons, or air travel. Sometimes we have to have modern ideas for modern problems.

LDS Liberal is creating strawmen and knocking them down again. His oversimplification of the "right wing" is driving us crazy! I don't think you'll find anyone saying that the constitution is "unfallible" (sic). We just want it to be followed. Is that too much to ask?

I wasn't aware that her oath office included the phrase "I will praise and worship the Constitution like it is a religious text and bad mouth every other Constitution in the world and never form or express my own opinions about anything. My job and goal in life is to only wave the flag and disparage everyone else in the world."

I guess I missed that part. I thought her job was to uphold the Constitution. I believe she can do that and praise another country's Constitution without a conflict of interest, but to the flag-waving crowd, if you don't walk in lock-step chanting USA, USA, USA, then you're just plain wrong.

Richard: Great letter. Well said. I agree.

Re: Happy Valley Heretic: It has 27 amendments because that divinely inspired document -- our Constitution -- wisely includes an orderly process for itself to be modified. Seem pretty straightforward to me.

Since SCOTUS justices serve "for life on good behavior" doesn't that make it pretty hard to try a justice for "treason" following a remark in a TV interview? I think treason should be made of stronger stuff, especially if you plan to ignore the Constitution in order to save it.

Earl
Sandy, UT
LDS Liberal is creating strawmen and knocking them down again. His oversimplification of the "right wing" is driving us crazy! I don't think you'll find anyone saying that the constitution is "unfallible" (sic). We just want it to be followed. Is that too much to ask?

=================

Talk about Strawmen arguements, Over-simplification and Following the Constitution!

Who cried for a sitting Supreme Court Judge to be tried for treason for an opinion in a TV interview?

Check, Check, and Check.

And once again -- WHO is Defending the Constitution, and WHO keeping messing with it by writing silly Ammendments when they don't get THEIR way?

I listened to the interview.
She's just saying, if you must start with a clean slate, try looking at one with all of our 230 years worth of Ammendments already incorporated into it for their new Benchmark or Baseline....that's all.
[You know, Free the Slaves, Woman's right to vote, ect. Things our Founding Fathers failed to do in the 1st place, and never chisled into stone, with a good system of adjustment.]

Treason?!
Strawman indeed....

Justice Ginsberg does an excellent job upholding the constitution. That's all that matters. That's all that should matter. This country is fortunate to have her serving on its Supreme Court.

"...It has 27 amendments because that divinely inspired document -- our Constitution -- wisely includes an orderly process for itself to be modified. Seem pretty straightforward to me...".

So, slavery WAS divinely inspired from 1787 until 1865.

Pretty straightforward as well?

Having heard from this particular letter writer before I of course knew better then to just run with their remarks and like blue watched the interview. It should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with mr nelsons writing that he has taken what ginsburg actually said wildly out of context. It is clear from the interview the high regard that she hold for our own constitution and that her remarks where a reflection on the reality Egypt currently faces not the reality we faced at the time of our constitution or presently face.