Comments on: What Makes Something Unconstitutional?

By: Judge Gerald Williams

Judge Gerald Williams — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:07:13 +0000

I find both interesting and somewhat amusing that some of the comments are apparently holding me accountable for a series of cases from the U.S. Supreme Court. Trust me, they don’t ask my opinion before they announce something. There are many statues and appellate decisions that are problematic at best; but I don’t have the option of ignoring them.

As I tell many at their photo enforcement hearing, if you don’t like this law, don’t yell at me. I didn’t write it, vote on it or pass it and none of the fines go to either the court or to Maricopa County. If you have a problem with this or any other state statute, consider contacting your state senator. It is not my job as a judge to “change” a statute.

By: Veritas Vincit

Veritas Vincit — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:35:07 +0000

“… based on an interstate-commerce clause.” That has been grossly misrepresented to suit the purposes of that one party to the agreement to thus allow that single party to grow unabated into areas and activities where the Framers would never have wished it to grow.

James Madison vetoed legislation that would have appropriated funds for the construction of federal roads in spite of the fact that he supported the idea. His written opinion supported by the SCOTUS at the time clearly notes that such an action by the federal government would require a Constitutional Amendment as there was no provision for it under the existing Constitution (1792).

I think President Madison knew more about the Constitution and its intent and meaning than we do today. His example strongly demonstrates the UnConstitutional nature of today’s use of the “general welfare” clause.

By: Veritas Vincit

Veritas Vincit — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:23:36 +0000

“… has been declared to be a fundamental right, like the right to privacy”

With all due respect to the judge, how can something not specified in the Constitution be “declared to be a fundamental right?”

If the document was open to speculative discovery of interpretive new rights such as the judge suggests in that statement, why did the Framers go to such lengths to be very clear in their enumerations?

And why did they go on to say that anything not contained in this document specifically was specifically reserved to the states?

The Constitution is a compact between two equals; the several States and the national government. It is therefore odd that one party to this compact has been allowed to define the terms of the agreement.

By: John

John — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:16:49 +0000

With all due respect to the honorable Justice…using open-ended terms like “rational basis” to justify whether a law is Constitutional, has turned out to be a dangerous way to justify an out-of-control-big-government.

There should be a better mechanism than something that vulnerable to bias…like a stricter set of guidelines that would not allow a complete government takeover of our healthcare, based on an interstate-commerce clause.

We are sinking the great ship of America, and we have judges sitting on benches splitting hairs over things that should be more clearly defined with common sense.

By: todd

todd — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:37:34 +0000

“Both sides have used terms incorrectly and out of context, even though there are clearly defined meanings”

Both sides? Really?

By: The Klute

The Klute — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:58:25 +0000

The Onion just did this:

“Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be”

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of

By: Hunter

Hunter — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:29:35 +0000

Shouldn’t the burden always be on the GOVERNMENT to prove that what it is doing IS constitutional rather than burdening citizens with the requirement to prove the govermnent is acting unconstitutionally?