Seventh Circuit Judge says the US Constitution, Bill of Rights have "no value"; "out-dated" - Polidicks

[quote]Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner sees “absolutely no value” in studying the U.S. Constitution because “eighteenth-century guys” couldn’t have possibly foreseen the culture and technology of today. In a recent op-ed for Slate, Judge Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments “do not speak to today.” [B]“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),” he wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”[/B] He added, “let’s not let the dead bury the living.” Judge Posner, an outspoken opponent of late Justice Antonin Scalia, also blasted “absurd” posthumous encomia for the late conservative.[/quote] [url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/richard-posner-no-value-in-studying-us-constitutio/[/url] Since this discussion seems to be an undertone in the past few gun threads, now we have a thread to talk it straight. Also I believe this guy is fully wrong.

Very editorialised title. This is a denouncement of originalism which the conservative right has enshrined as the central if not leading principle any bonafide conservative judge should abide by He has a very valid point about the uniformity of the justices today. The left has appointed judges that run from far left to near Central, while the right has appointed basically a block of far right justices who will twist around the Constitution and law to fit their beliefs. Scalea was the worst offender of this, being able to both cite the Constitution as an example and then proceed to ignore large chunks of it that contradicted his position. In his brief against gay marriage he made the case about how acts of states are valid in all states but that didn't mean gay marriage performed in one state should he recognised in others

[QUOTE=Sableye;50610263]Very editorialised title. This is a denouncement of originalism which the conservative right has enshrined as the central if not leading principle any bonafide conservative judge should abide by[/QUOTE] It's a denouncement of the constitution. Not even Critical Theory and Living Document go this far.

Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner should be out of a job

[quote]Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner sees “absolutely no value” in studying the U.S. Constitution because “eighteenth-century guys” couldn’t have possibly foreseen the culture and technology of today.[/quote] He is right. The Constitution came from a different time and is inapplicable today. That would be like saying the Old Testament should be codified and is relevant today because the "bible says it must be relevant forever."

Whether or not you like it, it's the law. If you hate the law so much, then either work to have it changed or fuck off to somewhere else.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50610291]Whether or not you like it, it's the law. If you hate the law so much, then either [B]work to have it changed[/B] or fuck off to somewhere else.[/QUOTE] What does it look like he's doing?

[QUOTE]In a recent op-ed for Slate, Judge Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments “do not speak to today.” [/QUOTE] so how about the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and the 26th amendments? According to this guy's words, equal rights for blacks/other marginalized groups and women shouldn't exist because it doesn't speak to today. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;50610289]He is right. The Constitution came from a different time and is inapplicable today. That would be like saying the Old Testament should be codified and is relevant today because the "bible says it must be relevant forever."[/QUOTE] It was codified, look at the Talmud/Mishnah?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610289]He is right. The Constitution came from a different time and is inapplicable today. That would be like saying the Old Testament should be codified and is relevant today because the "bible says it must be relevant forever."[/QUOTE] Except, unlike the Old Testament, the Constitution still makes a lot of sense unless you're opposed to, you know, freedom and such. It expresses no values that are inapplicable today. In fact I'd say many of them matter more now than they ever did, especially now that there's a growing tumor within our own government that wants to actually remove those values.

[QUOTE=ReligiousNutjob;50610296]What does it look like he's doing?[/QUOTE] Regardless of what he's doing, saying that judges shouldn't study what is currently the law because you don't like it is the height of stupidity.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI[/media] President Obama on the Constitution, in which he refers to as a "[B]deeply flawed[/B]" document. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50610304]Except, unlike the Old Testament, the Constitution still makes a lot of sense unless you're opposed to, you know, freedom and such. It expresses no values that are inapplicable today. In fact I'd say many of them matter more now than they ever did, especially now that there's a growing tumor within our own government that wants to actually remove those values.[/QUOTE] 1. Guns. You cannot be prohibited from buying guns if you are on a watch list or a no-fly list because guns are a protected right in the Constitution. But you can be prohibited from flying because the right to travel is not in the Constitution. For some reason, the Constitution holds that the right to have guns is more important than the right to travel. This is an inherent flaw in the Constitution. Guns should not be the "right" that we choose protect over the right to travel. There is no reason why guns are more valuable than traveling. This is one of the many flaws in this imperfect and outdated document.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50610271]Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner should be out of a job[/QUOTE] He's a very well respected legal scholar in other countries like Canada. One of my teachers never stop quoting him.

Nothing currently in the Constitution is wrong or inapplicable. Right to travel can and should be added as an amendment. That is why we have that system. Considering the government's current hobby of stripping away rights and privacy wherever it can, would you [I]really[/I] trust it to rewrite the only document that provides even an ounce of protection? I'm not going to argue with you on the importance of guns because you are going to steadfastly refuse anything offered to you. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Chaitin;50610348]He's a very well respected legal scholar in other countries like Canada. One of my teachers never stop quoting him.[/QUOTE] Canada can fucking have him then. We don't need members of the judicial branch saying that the laws that protect us from abuse by the government are irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610367]Arguing that the opposition is entrenched beyond discussion whilst you are just as entrenched in your beliefs has absolutely no merit in an argument.[/QUOTE] I'll engage almost anyone on this topic. There are two people so far that I won't engage in a debate about firearms. Starpluck is one of them.

Suggesting that we can modify the Constitution as a compromise is an unrealistic and sometimes deceptive compromise. We can, it is in the books, you can actually modify the Constitution. But it is in the same way we can make a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC. Simply saying "its possible" does not make it a likely possibility. The system has erred here. We are not supposed to have gridlocks. We are supposed to pass laws. We are not. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50610375]I'll engage almost anyone on this topic. There are two people so far that I won't engage in a debate about firearms. Starpluck is one of them.[/QUOTE] I do not argue guns so I am confounded by the label. The only time I ever brought up guns was during the Mateen fiasco in which I defended the right to bear arms. If my reputation for being anti-gun is so prevalent, then perhaps you could entertain us with examples where I have been stubbornly anti-gun.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;50610299]so how about the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and the 26th amendments? According to this guy's words, equal rights for blacks/other marginalized groups and women shouldn't exist because it doesn't speak to today.[/QUOTE] he's not in any way shape or form saying everything in it is the opposite of 'right'. He's saying due to how and when it was written, a good portion is losing relevance to what laws must stand for and why in modern society. He's basically calling for people to stop worshipping the cores of a nearly 230 year old document, and maybe start considering a new document written for today's society (surely with many core pieces of the old) over constantly amending the old

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610380]Suggesting that we can modify the Constitution as a compromise is an unrealistic and sometimes deceptive compromise. We can, it is in the books, you can actually modify the Constitution. But it is in the same way we can make a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC. Simply saying "its possible" does not make it a likely possibility. The system has erred here. We are not supposed to have gridlocks. We are supposed to pass laws. We are not.[/QUOTE] While complete and total gridlock is bad, I don't see the problem with it being almost impossible to revoke constitutional rights like you kinda want it to be hard to take those away from people

The flaw in the Constitution is there isn't a right to privacy spelled out. Sure the 4th, 5th, 6th and even 3rd amendments all hint at it but unlike the 1st amendment there is no "the people of the country have a right to privacy from government intrusion" or something like it. Today it's painfully obvious that the legal system isn't working in favor of privacy since there are now very few spaces where you are legally able to expect privacy, not even your own computer or smartphone makes the list

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50610394]While complete and total gridlock is bad, I don't see the problem with it being almost impossible to revoke constitutional rights like you kinda want it to be hard to take those away from people[/QUOTE] Then you cannot bring forth the argument that you can simply modify the Constitution as a compromise to the Constitution's imperfection and anti-constitutional sentiment. There are also amendments that must be ratified, but wont because the system has erred. Falling back on saying "This is how the system works" is not a valid argument if the system is flawed to begin with.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610419]Then you cannot bring forth the argument that you can simply modify the Constitution as a compromise to the Constitution's imperfection and anti-constitutional sentiment. There are also amendments that must be ratified, but wont because the system has erred. Falling back on saying "This is how the system works" is not a valid argument if the system is flawed to begin with.[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is that "we should throw out the constitution" is an absurdly and self evidently stupid idea. Yeah, the world would be great if everyone did exactly what you want and everything went your way 100% of the time, but unfortunately you live with other people so it's never going to work like that. So you're going to have to settle for gridlock.

[QUOTE]“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”[/QUOTE] and that's why they created the constitutional amendment system...

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610419]Then you cannot bring forth the argument that you can simply modify the Constitution as a compromise to the Constitution's imperfection and anti-constitutional sentiment. There are also amendments that must be ratified, but wont because the system has erred. Falling back on saying "This is how the system works" is not a valid argument if the system is flawed to begin with.[/QUOTE] A government that can easily pass any and all laws that come to the table is not a very good government. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Marbalo;50610439] Regarding the constitution as a godly text that if touched could cause a celestial catastrophe is beyond idiotic. [/QUOTE] People keep saying this but I'd love to them to point out where this actually happens.

Pretty much the reason that we are supposed to amend and make changes to the document over time, which is part of the problem of defending it like as if it's a stone pillar. At the same time, opening it up further can create big risks like removing our right to freedom of speech. Double-edged sword, really.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50610448]A government that can easily pass any and all laws that come to the table is not a very good government.[/QUOTE] The argument to this is "A government that cannot pass any law that comes to the table is not a very good government." It goes both ways. [QUOTE=meppers;50610446]and that's why they created the constitutional amendment system...[/QUOTE] The last Constitutional amendment (the 27th) took 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days to ratify. This is not a valid argument.

What the US has done is carved an elaborate statute out of marble, beautifully sculpted in all aspects save for the fact that its right hand is grotesquely deformed. Over time, many people have come to love the deformed right hand and they lavish praise on it, vehemently defending deformed right hands as being part of their culture that other people will never understand. Many have offered to mend it by replacing that part of the statute but deformed right hand-lovers violently oppose any such proposals.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610478]The argument to this is "A government that cannot pass any law that comes to the table is not a very good government." It goes both ways. [/QUOTE] I would argue no law passed is better than a bad law passed.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50610490]What the US has done is carved an elaborate statute out of marble, beautifully sculpted in all aspects save for the fact that its right hand is grotesquely deformed. Over time, many people have come to love the deformed right hand and they lavish praise on it, vehemently defending deformed right hands as being part of their culture that other people will never understand. Many have offered to mend it by replacing that part of the statute but deformed right hand-lovers violently oppose any such proposals.[/QUOTE] This is a fucking awful analogy and you should feel terrible for positing it as an argument.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50610291]Whether or not you like it, it's the law. If you hate the law so much, then either work to have it changed or fuck off to somewhere else.[/QUOTE] how is this toxic and ill-thought out mentality so, so [B]so[/B] prevalent?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610478] The last Constitutional amendment (the 27th) took 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days to ratify. This is not a valid argument.[/QUOTE] That's an odd way of saying "ten years" since an actual campaign to get it approved after it was introduced in the 1790s was only started in the 1980s. How about not being misleading?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50610492]I would argue no law passed is better than a bad law passed.[/QUOTE] Only if we have no bad laws to begin with. We have bad laws. They exist. By not passing laws to correct these bad laws, you are in effect supporting the existence and continuation of bad laws. The motive to avoid "bad laws" cannot be put forth as an argument if there are existing bad laws that need correcting in the first place.