Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner: ‘No value’ in studying the U.S. Constitution

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner: ‘No value’ in studying the U.S. Constitution

    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.”
    “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.”
    He added, “let’s not let the dead bury the living.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-constitutio/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    It is only a short step to invalidating all case law, much of which precedes the Constitution.

    BTW - it is the dead that support the living.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 06-27-2016 at 03:56 PM. Reason: added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRjE_EFk204

    Yeah man ... what constitution is he talking about?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    It is only a short step to invalidating all case law, much of which precedes the Constitution.

    BTW - it is the dead that support the living.
    The Giants upon whose shoulders we stand.

    That's why we wash our feet, change our socks, and flush.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    "Chicago" seems to be a pretty common thread among those seeking to destroy the rule of law.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    It is only a short step to invalidating all case law, much of which precedes the Constitution.
    If we ever had to make a choice, I'd suggest there is far more value in judges studying the US Constitution and the original intent of those who adopted the various portions of it, than of studying the case law that arises from decisions issued by judges.

    To draw an analogy, while there is some value in studying learned commentary on the scriptures, there is nothing quite like going directly to the Good Book itself, if one wants to learn the Word of God.

    So too with what is supposed to be permissible or not under our form of government. Learned commentary and rulings have some value. But everyone acknowledges no shortage of rulings that have simply been wrong: Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson being at the top of most lists.

    So given the choice between a man who knows the constitution and the intent of those who wrote and adopted it, but knows little or nothing of case law vs a man who knows case law but is ignorant of the constitution, I'll quickly and happily take the former over the latter every time to actually rule on what is or isn't permissible in our nation.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,869
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    If we ever had to make a choice, snippp

    To draw an analogy, while there is some value in studying learned commentary on the scriptures, there is nothing quite like going directly to the Good Book itself, if one wants to learn the Word of God.

    snipp

    Charles
    which tome, Noble Qur'an, Book(s) of Mormon, Catholic or Methodist or Baptist or Church of Christ King James or, Greek Orthodox, oh i know the Torah....

    and when the tomes are read the reader is taken back to the beginning so the reader understand the context....

    same for the study of law...back to our constitition w/ all the case law nuances so the learner can appropriately interrupt the laws of the land as the were originally written.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Posner implicitly states
    “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”
    ...what we all should know. Modern LE has little interest in a document that specifically restrains their actions.

    Posner, like many judges, likely believes that Terry v. Ohio is good law. Overturn Terry v. Ohio, Heien, and Strieff!!!
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The Giants upon whose shoulders we stand.

    That's why we wash our feet, change our socks, and flush.
    Giants that are crushing us maybe? I had no vote for most laws nor say in case law relating to other folk's cases so why would those cases apply to me?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    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.”
    “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.”
    He added, “let’s not let the dead bury the living.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-constitutio/
    The man is a buffoon. Inalienable rights do not change because God is the same yesterday today and forevermore. he is one of those living constitutional positivist

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    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.”
    “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.”
    He added, “let’s not let the dead bury the living.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-constitutio/
    The man is a buffoon. Inalienable rights do not change because God is the same yesterday today and forevermore. he is one of those living constitutional positivist

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    It is interesting that disparaging epithets are even allowed here at OCDO, particularly when the victim will never know of it to defend himself. Shall I call you a buffoon?

    A judge, while perhaps disagreeable to a pseudonymous jerk, is not likely a buffoon. Of course that expects the pseudonymous jerk to even know what is a buffoon.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-06-2016 at 06:43 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    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.”
    “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.”
    He added, “let’s not let the dead bury the living.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-constitutio/
    Of course, those eighteenth-century guys couldn't have learned a thing from earlier philosophers like John Locke or Richard Overton. Nor, Socrates or Aristotle. No way. Human nature is not constant. The inner workings of human nature, especially government, are not discoverable. Why, they are constantly changing. /sarcasm.

    Translation of Posner's comments. "Hey, let me figure it out for you. I can ignore history and its lessons. I will just make it up as I go along. It will be much, much better than building on the lessons of the past, meaning building on experience."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    Posner has apologized, but not retracted. Anyone else read that? Didn't think so.

    The Poverty of Historicism is that history provides a logic-like syllogism necessitating some conclusion from historiographic premises. Men have free will and the dialectic is false.

    For the less literate, apology does not mean 'sorry', however sorry the apologizer may be.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-07-2016 at 07:12 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The Poverty of Historicism is that history provides a logic-like syllogism necessitating some conclusion from historiographic premises. Men have free will and the dialectic is false.

    For the less literate, apology does not mean 'sorry', however sorry the apologizer may be.
    Got a link to his apology? Hmm?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Got a link to his apology? Hmm?
    Sure, but I'm not doing your scut work for you. It's at The Washington Times or a search engine news search.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Some of my contributions this year have drawn an unusual number of criticisms, focused on language I used that could be read as suggesting that I don’t think the Constitution has any role to play in interpreting the law—that it should be forgotten; that constitutional law is and must and maybe should be entirely a judicial creation, like fields of common law.

    That was not my intention, and I apologize if carelessness resulted in my misleading readers.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/01/...on-is-useless/
    Pfft!
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    He also knocked the Supreme Court Justices " I believe the Supreme Court is at nadir"

    I think the judges brain is at " nadir"..

    Chicago law school should terminate his tenure . Yale and Harvard should remove his name from their record books..

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    The man is a buffoon. Inalienable rights do not change because God is the same yesterday today and forevermore. he is one of those living constitutional positivist
    While they may not have had a crystal ball into the future, they did know that arms technology advanced quite a lot during even their lifetime...so accord this the idiot judge, they must have thought that technology would stop advancing. I see. Thanks for outing yourself as a lizzurd Mr. .gov man.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •