Constructionist vs. Originalist

Constructionist vs. Originalist The Media is in plain view, and the Justice system, in plain view, interprets the law. But if Media daily exposes and obstructs the work of the government, it is bringing the system to a halt. President Bush says that Harriet Miers is a constructionist and will not legislate from the Bench. This implies that she will not be in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade. This sets a time bomb to the evangelical conservatives, as their goal is to undo Roe vs. Wade, and they want an originalist to not only interpret the Constitution, but to interpret it based on the founding father’s original intent, not by recent liberal decisions during the era of the civil rights movement, such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973. The Evangelicals are getting extreme. John Danforth, former ambassador to the U.N. “The ascending of the right, they are mean and willing to destroy a human being. They kicked the president in the teeth.” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, has a biblical-phrased banner hung outside his office building in Washington about the Power of God being able to dispose of the king. This shows that they have a very aggressive attitude toward Bush or any government leaders. When Miers withdrew her nomination, the big winner was the far right wing of the Republican Party, the big loser is President Bush, and they attack him during his weak point when there are many other distractions, such as the CIA leak probe, hurricane relief, and management of the War on Terror. Harriet’s case illustrates the Fragility of an Aging System needing Reinforcement The confluence of factors contributed to her debacle, pressure from Republicans and from the media, so that the normal system of checks and balances was at a standstill. To quote, Justice Craig Enoch, Harriet Miers’ friend, “She felt senators asked her to cross the line, to give counsel documents out (to the Senate) on her work with the executive president.” Justice Antonin Scalia is an originalist who will go back to read documents from 1800, to find out what was in founding fathers’ heads. Abortion and an unbridled press certainly were not social issues in 1800. So the originalist justices such as Scalia will most likely reconcile the statutes of the constitution to tailor them for our contemporary desires. According to the N.Y. Times, he won’t allow the media into the Supreme Court. This way he preserves the rights of the government’s third branch, the Judicial Branch, to make its decisions with careful study and discussion, without every move and statement being scrutinized and assaulted by the mob and the free rein press. It is good that Supreme Court Justice Scalia barred TV reporters from a recent speech, and generally asks that his events be closed to television crews, although he allows the print media, and allows C-SPAN to tape comprehensive coverage for educational purposes. We see the daily destructive work by the White House female correspondent gangs in their sensational and activist approach to news reporting. They run amok in White House, there is no benefit for a serious audience. Often their careless remarks show that they are in league with some minor members of the administration to leak out news. They are careless, and unethical, and will do anything to create new problems for the president, and to exaggerate small problems until they become large ones. They are usually in the way of the administration, and in the case of Harriet Miers, prevented the usual system of checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches from functioning properly. New American Icon Fitzgerald. Walter Cronkite’s high standard for reporting is waning, so perhaps Fitzgerald should answer this calling by America, to rectify this free rein by the press. Fitzgerald has an aura of a remarkable talent, clear spoken and transcending all whims, not swayed by mundane desires. He is not swayed by the vicissitudes of emotion and he can transcend all emotional undercurrents or whims to allow an impartial visage and voice to emerge. Perhaps he will be able to embark on the important tasks of safeguard and enforcing the checks and balances between the three branches of government, which is an intrinsic value of a democratic and stable political social system. The intent of the founding fathers and their great minds is a legacy which needs to be understood and carried on, but with innovative modifications on statutes for the sake of expanding rights and the exertions and struggles throughout time. If decisions are to be made based on the views of the founding fathers, it is very difficult to guess what their views might be, because in 1800, slavery was legal, and women had no rights, so what would the founding father’s really think about Roe vs. Wade? In light of the slave status question for George Washington, would he be in favor of female abortion rights? Would he extend and expand a female’s rights to have control and say over her own body? His views on subjects such as this are pure speculation, and can be interpreted either way. This is the weakness of the originalist position. If Justice Scalia can interpret the ‘intent’ correctly, then he can jump out of the constricted frame of reference in the founding fathers’ world. If we ask Confucius’ view on Taiwan independence, what he would say is purely conjecture. But from different comments by him, I think that Confucius was a Nationalist, so he would want a strong cohesive nation, and was against separatists. The Justice system should make amendments to the Constitution and to interpret the First Amendment, so the freedom of speech of the media is not in conflict with the rights of the people. The legislative and the president are elected officials, while members of the media are motivated by profit, not elected by the people. If the media is under the pretense of free media, but steps into the domain and jurisdiction of the Judicial branch, legislative branch, and executive branch, the people must rein them in, by law, and by new reinforcement. The people’s delegations, Congressional members should not be overtaken by the anxious media who are not elected by the people and who have no consent from the people. The stability, the security and the checks and balances of the nation all should be maintained in conjunction with the first amendment. Media emboldened and want more protection shield But we still need Walter Cronkite. Judy Miller on a press conference, in Las Vegas, “I wish we have a shield law, so that we don’t have to go to jail because we don’t want to break our promise of confididentiality to our sources.” It doesn’t seem that the Bush administration deliberately wanted her to protect her source (Libby), and she obligated herself to protect her client’s confidentiality. This was perhaps an overly rigid interpretation, which unnecessarily brought the administration into predicament in times of war. Her jailing upset many members of the media, who thought that Bush was behind it, as revenge for wanting to publish a story about Niger not selling uranium to Saddam Hussein. Even though Bush was not behind the jailing, it was the special independent prosecutor who jailed her, and even though Libby had already released her from confidentiality, Bush’s poll numbers plummeted, and this caused a media uproar. In light of national security this case seems to damage the health and reputation of the nation. The media has become an uncontrollable beast and has free rein to obstruct important government works like hurricane relief, national security, and the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees.