Friday, July 3, 2009

Mainstream Sotomayor

Each time a person is nominated to the Supreme Court, people will ask ‘Is the nominee in the mainstream?’ So what does it mean to be in the ‘mainstream’? I see one definition has being “The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity”.
If the prevailing current of thought is outside of the US Constitution then I do not want the nominee to be in the ‘mainstream’. If the ‘mainstream’ view of the second amendment would have crossed the line of constitutionality but the ‘mainstream’ has not changed the constitution, then I would expect the Supreme court to rule against them. I expect the nominee to follow the US constitution, not what is popular. If its truly popular, I would expect the constitution to change.

Take the D.C. voting rights Bill. It would give the Washington D.C. a vote in the U.S. House. But this is reserved for States. Washington D.C. has not chosen to become our 51st state, and no one is changing the Constitution to allow D.C. to have votes. Allowing them to have a vote may have ‘mainstream’ support but it’s not constitutional. If it has sufficient support it would not be tough to make it constitutional. Simply passing legislation does not make it constitutional.

The Constitution is not living and breathing. It’s static. Its interpretation is not to change as each generation desires. Each generation may chose to change the Constitution, but you change the Constitution. You don’t pass unconstitutional legislation because you think it would be the right thing to do. You don’t pass laws to grant powers to the executive branch because you want them to do something. Congress can not just pass any legislation it wants. Yet that is what it does, and it seems to be accepted by the American people.

If being mainstream means not being constitutional, then don’t be mainstream.

No comments: