Justice Ginsburg: I prefer South Africa's constitution

[itshappening]

In an interview with Breitbart News Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) made the astute observation that Barack Obama is not just skeptical of our Constitution, but also has an alternative model in mind: the South African constitution. That document has been the object of fascination and envy for the American legal left ever since it was negotiated and passed in the mid-1990s, during South Africa’s transition to democracy.

The left is obsessed with a particular section of the South African constitution: its Bill of Rights, which includes so-called “positive,” or socioeconomic rights: the right to housing, the right to a clean environment, the right to health care, the right to food and water, and so on. South Africa's Bill of Rights also prevents discrimination on the basis of a wide range of categories, including both gender and sex, culture, sexual orientation, and pregnancy.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/28/Obama-s-South-African-Inspiration-Why-It-Matters

This is what Rand Paul is referring to, comments last year by Ginsburg where she told Egyptians to forget about looking at the U.S constitution, it's too old and they should look elsewhere:

-
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a storm of controversy by saying in a television interview that the people of Egypt should not look to the United States Constitution when drafting their own governing document because it’s too old and there are newer examples from which to draw inspiration.

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.

In the interview, she argued that the United States has the “oldest written constitution still in force in the world,” so instead “you should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II.”

“I might look at the constitution of South Africa,” Ginsburg said. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic Human Rights, had an independent judiciary.”

Ginsburg, appointed to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton, said South Africa’s constitution is “a great piece of work that was done” and cited other documents outside America’s constitution that Egyptians should read.

“Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Ginsburg said. “It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.”

“Yes,” she concluded, “why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/#ixzz2JNa7ILbY
-

[A Son of Liberty]

:facepalm:

There is simply no logical or moral viability to the concept of "positive rights".

Further proof that just because a person attains an advanced degree, or a high political office or other position of prominence in society does not mean that they are intelligent, or that their opinion is somehow weighty or, frankly, consequential.

People who advocate positive rights must perform mental gymnastics to overcome the truth that "taxation" is nothing more than a euphemism for theft. And what's more is, they fail miserably to people who hold a logically consistent philosophical foundation.

[CaptUSA]

If you believe in "positive rights", you cannot believe in negative rights. Because you cannot achieve the former without infringing upon the latter.

[itshappening]

The treason runs deep in America, right to the very top.

Here's a Supreme Court justice seriously rejecting the constitution which provided the basis for an economic miracle between 1800 - 1913 America became the richest country in the world, even with the civil war in the middle of that.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GDP-History.gif

[UtahApocalypse]

Treason.

[sailingaway]

She can prefer whatever she likes as long as she realizes she has to apply OURS not theirs.

[oyarde]

I agree that she should move to Africa.Call me , I will help you pack.

[Brian4Liberty]

She can prefer whatever she likes as long as she realizes she has to apply OURS not theirs.

She has no problem "re-interpreting" ours to look like anything she wants.

[coastie]

I agree that she should move to Africa.Call me , I will help you pack.

Ditto. 2 hands are better than 1. She may have to wait a while until the boat/ship I'm on gets there, I aint flying.

[Brian4Liberty]

The left is obsessed with a particular section of the South African constitution: its Bill of Rights, which includes so-called “positive,” or socioeconomic rights: the right to housing, the right to a clean environment, the right to health care, the right to food and water, and so on.

Sounds like the rights that correspond with a prison.

[BamaAla]

She can prefer whatever she likes as long as she realizes she has to apply OURS not theirs.

Ever read some of her opinions? She does not.

[Brian4Liberty]

As usual, I'll drop this here:


Here's what they do believe in: they believe in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.

They believe in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.

The Constitution is the worst sort of law for them. It's far too clear, simple and supreme. The best law in their eyes is ambiguous, convoluted, complex and with no priorities at all.

[Brian4Liberty]

The left is obsessed with a particular section of the South African constitution: its Bill of Rights, which includes so-called “positive,” or socioeconomic rights: the right to housing, the right to a clean environment, the right to health care, the right to food and water, and so on.

This is no Constitution, this is a recipe to destroy people; the road to hell, paved with the good intentions of Big Mommy.

Human drive and motivation, for the vast majority of people, derives from the struggle for food, shelter and mating. Providing all of these things for people for free drains initiative. This is the essence of the disagreement between socialism and free, private markets. The socialists would have the whole population living like spoiled children in their mother's basement. No motivation, no drive, no innovation, no economy. A bored and dispirited population.

Even those who would normally work a little harder to get ahead in a free, competitive, open private sector will instead turn towards deriving their wealth and power via the path of least resistance: joining government. No more true private sector, just government apparatchiks and their crony corporatists. Sounds very familiar for some reason.

[Lucille]

I wish that collectivist old bag would go live there (and go to hell quickly).

[Zippyjuan]

Has anybody actually read the South African Constitution? http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/index.htm

[osan]

:facepalm:

There is simply no logical or moral viability to the concept of "positive rights".

Tell that to the commie Ginsburg.

Perhaps Egypt should send an envoy to the US with an iron bar with which he would pay Ruth a friendly visit.


People who advocate positive rights must perform mental gymnastics to overcome the truth that "taxation" is nothing more than a euphemism for theft. And what's more is, they fail miserably to people who hold a logically consistent philosophical foundation.

Silly rabbit... they have to do no such thing. Their MO is to simply ignore such inconveniences and move forward regardless of how impossibly suicidal and wretched their ideas are. To them the fix is in and let nothing stand in the way. In addition, to such people, those with consistent positions merit being murdered at the very least.

PS: rep for the facepalm, though.

[A Son of Liberty]

Tell that to the commie Ginsburg.

Perhaps Egypt should send an envoy to the US with an iron bar with which he would pay Ruth a friendly visit.



Silly rabbit... they have to do no such thing. Their MO is to simply ignore such inconveniences and move forward regardless of how impossibly suicidal and wretched their ideas are. To them the fix is in and let nothing stand in the way. In addition, to such people, those with consistent positions merit being murdered at the very least.

Well said.

It's easy to assume that others recognize the foundational importance of maintaining logical consistency. Your post reminds me that some people are just fascist bastards, and our logical consistency is just grounds for having us "silenced".

I doff my chapeau, sir.

[osan]

If you believe in "positive rights", you cannot believe in negative rights. Because you cannot achieve the former without infringing upon the latter.

I do not know that this is in fact true, but I like the sound of it. I suppose I will have to eventually go through the exercise to work out the formal logic, but at the moment the very thought of this is making my head hurt.

[Confederate]

Has anybody actually read the South African Constitution? http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/index.htm

Looks just great!

Affirmative actions (racism and sexism):

Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.

Housing:

Everyone has the right to adequate housing.

Healthcare:

Everyone has the right to have access to *health care services, including reproductive health care;

Food and water:

Everyone has the right to have access to *sufficient food and water

Welfare:

Everyone has the right to social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.

Children have a right to:

to basic nutrition, shelter, basic health care services and social services;

Education:

Everyone has the right *
to a basic education, including adult basic education; and
to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.

All rights can be infringed:

The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom

Their Constitution isn't even the supreme law, international and foreign law can be applied in interpreting it

Interpretation of Bill of Rights

When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum *
must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom;
must consider international law; and
may consider foreign law.

[ninepointfive]

south africa is in ruin. no wonder we are headed that way

[Brian4Liberty]

Looks just great!

Affirmative actions (racism and sexism):


Housing:


Healthcare:


Food and water:


Welfare:


Children have a right to:


Education:


All rights can be infringed:


Their Constitution isn't even the supreme law, international and foreign law can be applied in interpreting it

No surprises there.