There was an error in this gadget

Follow Paul Gregory by Email

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

The Times Jumps In To Carry Justice Ginsburg’s Water

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg got herself into hot water, when she recommended to Egypt not to use the U.S. Constitution as its model. These are not politic words from a Justice of the Supreme Court carrying the weight of upholding the Constitution on her shoulders. She, like President Obama before her, seemed not to like the absence of “positive rights” in our Constitution.

The New York Times wasted no time in rushing to Ginsburg’s rescue with its ‘We the People’ Loses Followers. This page-one article reports the obscure research  of two law professors to be published in June, that shows that constitutions written in the postwar period have become less like the U.S. Constitution with the passage of time. The Times article even dredges up a 1789 letter from Thomas Jefferson saying that constitutions naturally expire at the end of nineteen years.”

I must say, they circled their wagons quickly. We can’t let middle America think we do not like the U.S. Constitution.

2 comments:

  1. wait a second. the great thing about US constitution is that it is part of a very long english tradition. the american certainly did not invent anything with their constitution but copied people like john locke and continued traditions of magna carta.

    HOWEVER the egyptions DO NOT have the english tradition. they have their own traditions, views and histories. the english system has worked for the english world but we cannot transplant it to another culture. in fact if you really look at the english system it consists of slow evolution. therefore the egyptions should not copy english law but rather try to continue and evolve their own system.

    i am very surprised that you think the constitution is only a document. no it is a very minor part of a very much larger thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To Anonymous:
    Reading the United States Constitution shows that, those that are not adopting ours do not intend"... to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution ...."

    Why we cannot transplant it? We do heart. Don't we? Did we try to transplant our Constitution, and see it rejected? Why they cannot adopted (since there is no patent on it as yet)? What happened to the 'catching-up'? Should everyone use land-line phones before moving to the wireless (cell)?

    I would let every nation to adopt our Constitution without paying a royalty (after all, we are a Republic).

    ReplyDelete