Monday, April 25, 2005
Men In Black I
My Friend, Mike (I think he wants to be called William Faulkner now.), recently lent me Mark R. Levin's, MEN IN BLACK. One issue for which Levin tasks the court is reliance upon international law and practices. On page 22 of the book he says:
"The power [the activist justices] crave does not exist in the Constitution, which is why they must constantly skirt its provisions."
"Reliance on international law is a complete rejection of not only the roles of the other branches... but the Constitution itself."
Of course, Levin is spot-on. Is it so radical to believe that the Constitution is a meaningful document, that the words of the document had meaning when they were written and that the meaning of those words does not change with the mere passage of time?
"The power [the activist justices] crave does not exist in the Constitution, which is why they must constantly skirt its provisions."
"Reliance on international law is a complete rejection of not only the roles of the other branches... but the Constitution itself."
Of course, Levin is spot-on. Is it so radical to believe that the Constitution is a meaningful document, that the words of the document had meaning when they were written and that the meaning of those words does not change with the mere passage of time?
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 9:56 AM 
