Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde ValleySedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley
    Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley
    • Home
    • Sedona
      • Arts and Entertainment
      • Bear Howard Chronicles
      • Business Profiles
      • City of Sedona
      • Elections
      • Goodies & Freebies
      • Mind & Body
      • Sedona News
    • Opinion
    • Real Estate
    • About
    • The Sedonan
    • Advertise
    • Sedona’s Best
    Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde ValleySedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley
    Home»Arizona»Supreme Court Another Pawn?
    Arizona

    Supreme Court Another Pawn?

    July 13, 20113 Comments
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Email Reddit WhatsApp
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email Reddit WhatsApp

    Re-writing the US Constitution

    By Mel Copen

    Mel CopenSedona, AZ (July 13, 2011) – Back in the late 1700’s, when our nation was established, the Founding Fathers came up with a unique system of checks and balances. The government was structured in three parts – an executive branch, headed by the President; a legislative branch, with two Houses; and a judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court. The concept was to divide the powers of government among the three.

    Over the years, and particularly recently, polls show enormous citizen disenchantment with a clearly dysfunctional Congress. Similarly, the office of President has lost much of its respect. But one institution, for many years, still provided an anchor point for confidence – the Supreme Court. My sense is that this is now eroding so fast that it will soon hit the depths of the other two. The dramatic insertion into the politics during the Bush/Gore dispute in Florida was one such step downward. Recently, the ruling relating to California’s ban on sales of violent computer games to minors is another.

    Article III of the Constitution defines the Judicial Branch. At no point does it mention anything about interpreting the Constitution. But in 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall took the position that the Supreme Court had the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws that came before the court. In a letter to the Court, Thomas Jefferson disagreed. He felt that giving that power to the Supreme Court would undermine the balance of powers which the framers of the Constitution intended. Marshall’s position won out and since then, the right of the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues has been broadly accepted.

    Article 5 of the Constitution provides specific procedures for changing the document, requiring that a Constitutional Convention must be called by either two thirds of both Houses of Congress or by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States and that the approval of any proposed Amendments would require the ratification of the Legislatures or Conventions in three fourths of the States – a fairly high hurdle to surmount. Subsequent to the addition of the Bill of Rights, containing the first 10 Amendments, it has happened only 17 times.

    Many things have changed since the Constitution was first written. Some of these are natural progressions – e.g. the growth from 13 States to 50. But some had to be wholly unanticipated by the founding fathers – e.g. the advent of computers and the impact of the Internet. Yet many individuals have attempted to interpret everything as seen through the minds of those patriots who framed the document in the late 1700’s. And the task of interpretation, a la John Marshall, has largely fallen to the Supreme Court. My sense is that this has gone well beyond interpretation and one can make a strong argument that the Supreme Court is now violating the Constitution by rewriting it without going through the detailed amendment process that the document prescribes.

    The text of the first amendment to the Constitution, in part, currently reads: Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…

    Sedona Gift Shop

    In it’s decision last week (Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association), by an amazing vote of 7 to 2, the Court struck down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. The court said video games were subject to full protection of the 1st amendment and that California does not have the “power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.” In writing the majority opinion( for 5 of the 7 Justices), Justice Scalia compared violent video games (defined by the California law “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being”) as equivalent to the violence in Snow White, Cinderella and Hansel and Gretel. Somehow the difference between reading about violent activity (all of which, by the way, has a happy ending) and committing violent activity (and being rewarded for it) doesn’t seem to register with at least 5 of the keepers of our Constitutional integrity.

    Where does common sense enter into the picture and where does the influence of a multi-billion dollar industry end? The chief executive of one of the largest video game companies hailed the decision as one where “everybody wins,” especially the game developers and store owners.

    One could argue that this decision, although it has not changed the wording, has modified the first amendment to the constitution. The relevant portion is now interpreted as equivalent to: “Congress shall make no laws …abridging the freedom of speech or the ability of the video game industry to say and sell whatever it wishes to whomever it wishes notwithstanding the rights of parents and community leaders which shall be abrogated…”

    You could argue that this places the responsibility in the hands of parents. But does it? Can parents truly exert control? Numerous “tests” have shown that, even with the law in place, minors were able to walk into stores and acquire the products. And controlling a young person’s time in front of a computer has proved to be a daunting task.

    Has the Supreme Court just become another pawn in the game played by big-moneyed special interest groups? Is it not possible to draw a line relating to “free speech” based on standards of common sense? Or has violence become so endemic that we wish to give our youngsters every opportunity to develop their violent skills and their indifference to violent activity? Is this what the Founding Fathers discussed when they thought about the first Amendment’s application to violent video games two and a half centuries ago? The Supreme Court seems to think so!

    © Mel Copen, July, 2011

    Healing Paws

    This is an advertisement

    mel copen

    3 Comments

    1. Publisher on July 13, 2011 2:09 pm

      I’ve been wondering over the past 12 or so years why the constitution has been shunned as outdated and not relevant and the Bill of Rights has been violated many more times. The checks and balances built in have been completely ignored. How did we let this happen? Has anyone ever read the Patriot Act, for example? I thought the constitution was the supreme law of the land.

      Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security. Benjamin Franklin.

    2. Paul Chevalier on July 13, 2011 4:35 pm

      Benjamin Franklin publicly stated that he believed the the life of our first Constitution should be about 25 years. France has rewritten its constitution numerous times since its first adoption (which was after ours). America has not rewritten its Constitution (we’ve just added a few amendments) and so the task falls to some government body(s) to interpret it. Today’s world contains many things that did not exist and were not even conceived of at the time our Constitution was written, Certainly video games were not in the minds of any of the framers of the Constitution.
      Since nogovernment body seems to be much interested in adopting a new Constitution some government body needs tohave the final responsibility to interpret new laws to see if they conflict with it. If our Supreme Courts were not to be the final interpreter the constitution then who should it be – the President? – our Congress? – each State legislatures? The worst choice would be each State legislatures since we could end up with fifty different interpretations of the same language. The least bad choice is our Supreme Court.

    3. Dale Casey on July 20, 2011 7:00 pm

      The US Constitution was never meant to be “interpreted”. It stands on it’s own as the most important document ever written to govern a nation of honest people…….”honest” being the key word. Unfortunately, we have become a nation of corruption by those who govern and the more power they give themselves over the governed, the more power they want and eventually, this always leads to the downfall of the Republic. History is rapidly repeating itself and the end result will not be pleasant. The case mentioned in the body of the article illustrates how far we have fallen from what our Founding Fathers gave to us to protect with our very lives. People from other countries know the value and the uniqueness of our Constitution and are warning us to not let it be destroyed by the politicians in power and the indifference of our citizens. There has never been a document in the history of man that has given a people more personal freedom than Our United States Constitution. Because of the gift of freedom it has given us, I am a veteran who will fight to the death to protect and defend the Document that has given us more freedom than anyone else on earth. It’s time for all citizens to get involved by watching the actions of those who are supposed to be representing us and if they are not doing what’s right for the Country and continue playing Party Politics and name-calling, it’s time to vote them out of office. They, like me, has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and by doing so, the Country should always come first.

    Babies No More

    Babies No More

    By Sean Dedalus

    I was talking to the Sedona.biz publisher/editor the other day, Tommy Acosta, and learned that our common friend Fernando Rivera of North Carolina passed away. It was reported that life and time caught him and then overcame him, and his heart quietly and suddenly failed.

    Read more→

    The Sedonan
    Need More Customers?
    Bear Howard Chronicles
    Humankind
    Tlaquepaque
    Verde Valley Wine Trail
    Recent Comments
    • Brigitte Sims on Babies No More
    • Eira on Babies No More
    • Jeremiah Perez on Babies No More
    • Michael Schroeder on Don’t Prejudge
    • JB on Rotary Club of Sedona Village Presents $15,000 Check at V A Hospital Veterans Picnic
    • JB on Don’t Prejudge
    • JB on Don’t Prejudge
    • JB on Don’t Prejudge
    • JB on Don’t Prejudge
    • JB on Don’t Prejudge
    • D w on Don’t Prejudge
    • JB on Don’t Prejudge
    • Susan on Don’t Prejudge
    • Susan on Don’t Prejudge
    • Susan on Don’t Prejudge
    Archives
    Babies No More

    Babies No More

    By Sean Dedalus

    I was talking to the Sedona.biz publisher/editor the other day, Tommy Acosta, and learned that our common friend Fernando Rivera of North Carolina passed away. It was reported that life and time caught him and then overcame him, and his heart quietly and suddenly failed.

    Read more→

    The Sedonan
    The Sedonan
    Babies No More

    Babies No More

    By Sean Dedalus

    I was talking to the Sedona.biz publisher/editor the other day, Tommy Acosta, and learned that our common friend Fernando Rivera of North Carolina passed away. It was reported that life and time caught him and then overcame him, and his heart quietly and suddenly failed.

    Read more→

    Babies No More

    Babies No More

    By Sean Dedalus

    I was talking to the Sedona.biz publisher/editor the other day, Tommy Acosta, and learned that our common friend Fernando Rivera of North Carolina passed away. It was reported that life and time caught him and then overcame him, and his heart quietly and suddenly failed.

    Read more→

    Babies No More

    Babies No More

    By Sean Dedalus

    I was talking to the Sedona.biz publisher/editor the other day, Tommy Acosta, and learned that our common friend Fernando Rivera of North Carolina passed away. It was reported that life and time caught him and then overcame him, and his heart quietly and suddenly failed.

    Read more→

    Babies No More

    Babies No More

    By Sean Dedalus

    I was talking to the Sedona.biz publisher/editor the other day, Tommy Acosta, and learned that our common friend Fernando Rivera of North Carolina passed away. It was reported that life and time caught him and then overcame him, and his heart quietly and suddenly failed.

    Read more→

    Babies No More

    Babies No More

    By Sean Dedalus

    I was talking to the Sedona.biz publisher/editor the other day, Tommy Acosta, and learned that our common friend Fernando Rivera of North Carolina passed away. It was reported that life and time caught him and then overcame him, and his heart quietly and suddenly failed.

    Read more→

    © 2025 All rights reserved. Sedona.biz.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.