If they ever make videos called "Pundits Gone Wild", one of the first installments has to be about NY Times writer Paul Krugman. I was reminded of that today when I saw that Krugman wrote a column under the headline "Kavanaugh Will Destroy the Constitution".
It's hard to fathom how a supposedly intelligent man could actually write such a thing. After all, Krugman won a Nobel Prize in Economics for work regarding international trade. While that has little to do with the workings of the US Constitution or even the government, one would still think that Krugman would have learned how the Constitution works. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. For the last two hundred plus years, the Court has been the final word on what is and what is not allowed under the Constitution. Kavanaugh has pledged that he will follow the words of the Constitution as written, and his many years' worth of opinions as a Circuit Court judge demonstrate that he is true to that pledge. That means that what Krugman is saying is that by following the terms of the Constitution, Kavanaugh will be destroying that document. Think about that.
For most of our history, the Supreme Court always followed the terms of the document. If a change was desired, it had to be achieved through the amendment process. Then, about sixty years ago, the Court began creating new rights and requirements in the Constitution; it began legislating from the bench. Justice Douglas tried to explain the basis for these actions in some rather famous words; he said that the new rights were emanations from the penumbra of the Constitutional provisions. I guess that sounds better than saying that they just made them up. As a result of this expansive view of the power of the Court, we got all sorts of rulings that put new things into the Constitution that just aren't there. A good example is the Roe v. Wade decision. Most Americans know that this is the case that made abortion into a constitutional right. What most Americans don't know is that there is nothing in the Constitution that mentions abortion or even forms the basis for granting the right to abortion. Now don't get me wrong; I am not arguing for or against abortion here. That is a different subject. The question is whether or not the Supreme Court ought to be able to create new rights when the Constitution has clear provisions about how that is to be done (through amendments). Prior to Roe, the issue of abortion was determined by the states. At the time, some states (like New York) allowed abortions in most circumstances, while others barred the procedure. It was a local political decision. By stepping into this issue, the Court took the matter out of the political process and made it a constitutional right. That led to a fifty year battle to get the rule changed.
But back to Krugman. Clearly, he thinks that by actually following the Constitution, it will be the end of judge-passed legislation through the creation of new constitutional rights. That will follow the Constitution, not destroy it.
It's hard to fathom how a supposedly intelligent man could actually write such a thing. After all, Krugman won a Nobel Prize in Economics for work regarding international trade. While that has little to do with the workings of the US Constitution or even the government, one would still think that Krugman would have learned how the Constitution works. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. For the last two hundred plus years, the Court has been the final word on what is and what is not allowed under the Constitution. Kavanaugh has pledged that he will follow the words of the Constitution as written, and his many years' worth of opinions as a Circuit Court judge demonstrate that he is true to that pledge. That means that what Krugman is saying is that by following the terms of the Constitution, Kavanaugh will be destroying that document. Think about that.
For most of our history, the Supreme Court always followed the terms of the document. If a change was desired, it had to be achieved through the amendment process. Then, about sixty years ago, the Court began creating new rights and requirements in the Constitution; it began legislating from the bench. Justice Douglas tried to explain the basis for these actions in some rather famous words; he said that the new rights were emanations from the penumbra of the Constitutional provisions. I guess that sounds better than saying that they just made them up. As a result of this expansive view of the power of the Court, we got all sorts of rulings that put new things into the Constitution that just aren't there. A good example is the Roe v. Wade decision. Most Americans know that this is the case that made abortion into a constitutional right. What most Americans don't know is that there is nothing in the Constitution that mentions abortion or even forms the basis for granting the right to abortion. Now don't get me wrong; I am not arguing for or against abortion here. That is a different subject. The question is whether or not the Supreme Court ought to be able to create new rights when the Constitution has clear provisions about how that is to be done (through amendments). Prior to Roe, the issue of abortion was determined by the states. At the time, some states (like New York) allowed abortions in most circumstances, while others barred the procedure. It was a local political decision. By stepping into this issue, the Court took the matter out of the political process and made it a constitutional right. That led to a fifty year battle to get the rule changed.
But back to Krugman. Clearly, he thinks that by actually following the Constitution, it will be the end of judge-passed legislation through the creation of new constitutional rights. That will follow the Constitution, not destroy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment