{"id":23032,"date":"2005-10-03T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T06:40:32","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-05-19T06:40:32","modified_gmt":"2011-05-19T06:40:32","slug":"breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/","title":{"rendered":"Breyer Misses Miracle and Brilliance of the Constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

RUSH: Stephen Breyer<\/a>, a sitting <\/emphasize>US Supreme Court justice, appeared on a Sunday television show. I find that, by itself, fascinating. This isn\u2019t done. They may sit for an interview now and then, print interviews in a legal journal, may go make a speech but to go on a Sunday talk show? Not common. Stephanopoulos said to Justice Breyer — and this is the justice, by the way, that thinks: If we have to go to Mars to find law that we agree with, do that. <\/emphasize> He doesn\u2019t believe we should be constrained by the boundaries of US law nor the Constitution. Stephanopoulos says, “Probably the justice most known for textualism, originalism, is Justice Scalia, and says, ‘Listen, we have to steer clear of intent. We have to steer clear of looking at consequences. Consequences are not our role. We have to pay attention to the text.\u2019 Now, your book, Justice Breyer, is looking at a very different situation.”<\/line> BREYER: It does look in a different direction. But the main point of the book is to tell, people who would like to read it, that basically when judges decide cases — not all, but many — they must look back to basic purposes and consequences. Those aren\u2019t the only things, but I want to explain why I think it\u2019s necessary to do that, and that means that I have to explain originalism, textualism, why that doesn\u2019t, in my opinion, work very well.<\/line>RUSH: So the guy is out hawking a book. Well, that\u2019s just hunky-dory. That\u2019s just peachy keen. Nothing says he can\u2019t do it, but you just wonder about the propriety <\/emphasize>of it all. So he says here, “Originalism? Textualism? That doesn\u2019t work very well.”<\/line> You might say, “Well, why doesn\u2019t it work very well?” Here\u2019s what he says.<\/line><\/p>\n

BREYER: Because in close cases, when you take a look at history — history doesn\u2019t tell you, the people who wrote the Constitution really didn\u2019t think that there would be an Internet. They went to Philadelphia [sic– Indepencence<\/a>] Hall in carriages. They went there with horses. They didn\u2019t go there in automobiles. They thought the commerce clause would apply in the future, but not just for horses, and they didn\u2019t dream of automobiles; they didn\u2019t dream of television, and they didn\u2019t dream of Internet, computers, all the things that affect our privacy, for example. So there\u2019s not going to be a way to look back and say, “What did Thomas Jefferson say about the application of the First Amendment to this particular instance?” or to most of modern society where you\u2019re talking about develops that didn\u2019t then exist.<\/line>RUSH: This is so sad. This is so sad. That is the miracle and the brilliance of the Constitution. It does just that. It is <\/emphasize>the Constitution. Just as Breyer may think that you can\u2019t go back and interpret the original intent, by the same token, Mr. Justice, you can\u2019t tell us what they would have intended, which is what this view seeks to do. It seeks to tell us what they would <\/emphasize>have intended had they envisioned automobiles or the Internet or computers or some such thing. The miracle and the brilliance of the Constitution is that it does. It\u2019s the glue that has kept this country together by being loyal to it, by having fealty to its original intent — and what is this business of Justice Breyer appropriating the right to enumerate powers for people? Anything not in the Constitution is enumerated. They allowed for this. They allowed for things that they didn\u2019t mention to be dealt with in specific ways, and you will not find in the Constitution where the Founders wrote, “And, by the way, the things that we didn\u2019t think of here? The Supreme Court gets to decide.” They didn\u2019t say that. They didn\u2019t even say the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of laws. The court decided that itself in Marbury vs. Madison. The big fear and the longtime concern of the court is that it\u2019s nine lawyers who wear black robes, and this is a lot of power they\u2019ve given themselves to determine the constitutionality of things, which is not in the original intent; it\u2019s not in the Constitution. <\/line> Well, if they can amass that kind of power and get egos the size of the country in terms of how they view their own importance to the future, it\u2019s no wonder that you get such bastardized rulings that have come out of these people, and of course this doesn\u2019t even talk about the states and their role in enumerated powers or enumerated rights. So it\u2019s troubling to hear this, especially when he\u2019s out there now selling a book. I watched Dianne Feinstein this morning outside her palatial mansion <\/emphasize>in Pacific Heights in San Francisco, and she was being asked about Harriet Miers, and she said, “Well, I don\u2019t really know much about Harriet Miers.” So she started a recitation of what\u2019s wrong with the court. She said her big concern, other than Roe vs. Wade, which is her #1 concern, her big concern is the commerce clause. She says, “The Supreme Court is telling us where we can and can\u2019t legislate,” and then she brought up the commerce clause. She said, “This court told us that Congress cannot rule that you can\u2019t have a gun a thousand feet or a thousand yards, whatever it is, from a school. Well, she said most Americans look at that and that\u2019s silly. Do we want guns within a thousand feet of schools?”<\/line> Senator, if you don\u2019t want guns a thousand feet from schools, go to the local area, go to the state and have them deal with it, because the commerce clause does not <\/emphasize>give the US Congress the right to pass that law. The Supreme Court was right. Interstate <\/emphasize>commerce! This is where these people who have an expansionist view will look at the Constitution and say, “Well, they would have never envisioned there would have been guns outside all these schools. They of course would understand that we\u2019re trying to limit this.” No, they didn\u2019t. They covered it clearly in the Constitution. Interstate commerce, interstate commerce is that commerce that goes on between the two states — and that\u2019s what the commerce clause is all about, or between more than one state, not just two, but more than one. But for Congress to say that a school district in California cannot have guns within a thousand feet of the school, the commerce clause is being illegally applied there. The Supreme Court was right to overturn that. She doesn\u2019t get it. “Well, that\u2019s silly. We have to understand how silly that is, and Congress has the right to pass,” not according to the Constitution. It works when it\u2019s originally applied, folks.<\/line>BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/line>RUSH: Let\u2019s do nine and ten consecutively here. Start with #9.<\/line><\/p>\n

BREYER: Because in close cases, when you take a look at history — history doesn\u2019t tell you, the people who wrote the Constitution really didn\u2019t think that there would be an Internet. They went to Philadelphia Hall [sic — Independence <\/emphasize>Hall] in carriages. They went there with horses. They didn\u2019t go there in automobiles. They thought the Commerce Clause would apply in the future, but not just for horses, and they didn\u2019t dream of automobiles; they didn\u2019t dream of television, and they didn\u2019t dream of Internet, computers, all the things that affect our privacy, for example. So there\u2019s not going to be a way to look back and say, “What did Thomas Jefferson say about the application of the First Amendment to this particular instance?” or to most of modern society where you\u2019re talking about develops that didn\u2019t then exist. <\/line> RUSH: Even Stephanopoulos has recognized this is bogus, but before I get to the next bite, this business of privacy? You know, that right\u2019s not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, judge. But to think that the framers had no concept of it, to think because they didn\u2019t have television and they didn\u2019t dream of it, they didn\u2019t know about the Internet? Go back and look at the print media when these guys were writing the Constitution. I\u2019m going to tell you that the print media was all tabloid. Well, the vast majority of it was. You think the media today is low down dirty rotten? Folks, the things — William Safire\u2019s written a great book<\/a> about this, a novel that\u2019s historically accurate, about one of these journalists named James Callender, C-a-l-l-e-n-d-e-r. These people were vicious. The Founders new full well what they were dealing with and yet they still created a free press. That\u2019s why the document is brilliant. It\u2019s why it\u2019s a miracle. Anyway, Stephanopoulos, he realizes that this idea that Breyer is talking about is not even in the Constitution. The idea: Well, we don\u2019t know what they were thinking so we have to assume for them.<\/emphasize> He says, “I\u2019m still having trouble figuring where specifically the idea you just talked about is based in the Constitution.”<\/line>BREYER: It\u2019s based in Articles 1 through 7. They created —<\/line>STEPHANOPOULOS: That\u2019s all, one through seven?<\/line>BREYER: Yeah. That\u2019s the Constitution, and the rest is the amendments — and what are the first three words of the Constitution?<\/line>STEPHANOPOULOS: We, the people.<\/line>BREYER: We, the people, that\u2019s right. We, the people, not we the states. It\u2019s not just omitted but it\u2019s “we the people” that are creating the document, and what kind of a document is it? It is a document designed to create institutions that would allow the people themselves to decide what their communities, what their states, what their towns, what their national government will be like. What rules do they want? What practices do they want to govern themselves?<\/line>RUSH: Well, then, judge, why don\u2019t you vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade on the very basis of what you just said because you\u2019re denying the people their right! You are not the people! That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not an elected body. You serve lifetime terms. There\u2019s no way of redress when people disagree with what you\u2019re doing. The court has appropriated all of these decisions from the people. It\u2019s incredible — and let me give you the outgrowth. We\u2019ve the Kelo decision, eminent domain decision. Eeeeverybody <\/emphasize>was outraged about this. Try this. This is from the Washington Times. Mr. Snerdley, this is happening barely — from where we sit, as the crow flies — five miles north of here. “Florida\u2019s Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex. ‘This is a community that\u2019s in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year,\u2019 said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown. He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is ‘using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers.\u2019 <\/line>“Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.” So tell me, Justice Breyer, where is it in this ruling, in the Kelo ruling, that the people <\/emphasize>have anything to say about what\u2019s happening? You\u2019ve just empowered government here with this ruling. He voted for Kelo. So to listen to this here talk about, “Well, the Founders didn\u2019t account for this; they didn\u2019t account for that. It\u2019s written by We the People.” You are not “We the People.” That\u2019s the whole point. The judicial branch is not We the People<\/emphasize>, and if you go read the Federalist Papers and if you go read the Constitution, you will find how very little was said about the court, in terms of its importance, at least as the court has amassed importance for itself. So you\u2019ve got 6,000 local residents right up the road from here in Riviera Beach– poor, predominantly black — and from the sounds of it the mayor wants to sweep them away somewhere, and put in a big marina, get a bigger tax base, revive the economy from out of the doldrums up there, and he\u2019s citing Kelo as his reason for doing it.<\/line>END TRANSCRIPT<\/line><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Stephen Breyer, a sitting US Supreme Court justice, appeared on a Sunday television show. I find that, by itself, fascinating. This isn\u2019t done. They may sit for an interview now and then, print interviews in a legal journal, may go make a speech but to go on a Sunday talk show? Not common. Stephanopoulos […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nBreyer Misses Miracle and Brilliance of the Constitution - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Breyer Misses Miracle and Brilliance of the Constitution - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: Stephen Breyer, a sitting US Supreme Court justice, appeared on a Sunday television show. I find that, by itself, fascinating. This isn\u2019t done. They may sit for an interview now and then, print interviews in a legal journal, may go make a speech but to go on a Sunday talk show? Not common. Stephanopoulos […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/\",\"name\":\"Breyer Misses Miracle and Brilliance of the Constitution - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T06:40:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-05-19T06:40:32+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Breyer Misses Miracle and Brilliance of the Constitution\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Breyer Misses Miracle and Brilliance of the Constitution - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Breyer Misses Miracle and Brilliance of the Constitution - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: Stephen Breyer, a sitting US Supreme Court justice, appeared on a Sunday television show. I find that, by itself, fascinating. This isn\u2019t done. They may sit for an interview now and then, print interviews in a legal journal, may go make a speech but to go on a Sunday talk show? Not common. Stephanopoulos […]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/","name":"Breyer Misses Miracle and Brilliance of the Constitution - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T06:40:32+00:00","dateModified":"2011-05-19T06:40:32+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/10\/03\/breyer_misses_miracle_and_brilliance_of_the_constitution\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Breyer Misses Miracle and Brilliance of the Constitution"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23032"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23032\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}