Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wasn’t out to make news when he addressed the annual conference of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and devoted most of his 50-minute speech to the Magna Carta, which turns 800 years old in 2015. But Kennedy did let on that he doesn’t belong to the school of Constitution-worshipers who base their legal doctrines on what they glean to be the original, literal meaning of every word and phrase in the nation’s founding document.
“The Constitution of the United States is a flawed document,” Kennedy said at Thursday’s windup conference session in Monterey. By “thinly veiled language,” he said, it “basically reaffirmed the legality of slavery,” referring to provisions that allowed the slave trade to continue at least until 1808 and defined each slave as three-fifths of a person when deciding how many congressional delegates to assign to each state.The 600,000 who died in the Civil War, Kennedy said, were “one of the things it cost for having a Constitution that was flawed.”……To Read More….
My Take - Kennedy is like so many "moderates" - they have no idea what they believe. Here's a Supreme Court justice that swore to uphold the Constitution and make rulings based on the Constitution, and yet he cites "international law" as a foundation for his views. He's right that the Constitution is a flawed document. That's why the "Bill of Rights" was added - the first ten amendments. However, the framers knew the limitations of the document and made an allowance for changing it in one of two ways.
Congress can propose a Constitutional change and with a two-thirds vote in favor of the change by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then any changes would then have to be approved by three fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution, which is how it has been done all along.
The second way would be for two thirds of the states to apply to Congress for an Article V Convention, which the Congress then must agree to, and if three fourth of the states agree on any changes those would become part of the Constitution.
However, nowhere in the Constitution did the framers think it was the job of the federal judiciary to change any flaws in that document. No matter how flawed the Constitution was or is, the power to change it rests in the power of the legislature, and this idea that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ is nothing more than a fallacy the judiciary has been foisting of the public to justify their treason. Treason? Isn’t that a bit strong? If someone is deliberately perverting the intent of the law and the views of those who passed those laws in order to promote their own agenda - what else can you call it?
Kennedy is an example of the hacks that infest the federal judiciary. So much for life time appointments keeping the federal judicary pure. Now that's an amendment that really needs to be considered because you can't fix stupid!