Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Constitutional Infirmity

Professor Graglia* has a succinct piece on judicial activism in today's Wall Street Journal. I know I will be writing more about this later, particularly in terms of the dormant Commerce Clause and the Civil Rights Act. For now, I recommend that you quietly read Mr. Graglia's opinion and try to keep count of how many times you nod your head in agreement.

A teaser:
The essential irrelevance of the Constitution to contemporary constitutional law should be clear enough from the fact that the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law; and nearly all of them purport to be based on a single constitutional provision, the 14th Amendment--in fact, on only four words in one sentence of the Amendment, "due process" and "equal protection." The 14th Amendment has to a large extent become a second constitution, replacing the original.



*Make note of his forthcoming book, edited by Justice Dr. Robert Bork.

8 comments:

spd rdr said...

Boy oh boy. I can see that everyone is breathless in anticipation for my follow up on this issue.

Pile On® said...

I am breathless.

Repeal the 14th?

spd rdr said...

Shhhhhhh! I am currently developing your platform for the campaign ahead. Wouldn't want it to get out too early.

Pile On® said...

If you are going to be my Rove, it may be difficult to get you SC nomination through the senate.

spd rdr said...

Oh don't worry, P.O. WE'll just change the Rules.

KJ said...

Changing the rules? Wasn't that the point of the article?

spd rdr said...

Uh huh.
Power deplores a vacuum.

portia said...

I think he's ready to burst Cass, but he's waiting for one of us to beg. How 'bout I go first:
Give us a C, whaddya get? Commerce, Commerce; give us an O, whaddya get? Overloa... Oops. You're turn, Cass:)
Welcome back.