Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Talks Constitution, Women And Liberty On Egyptian TV (VIDEO)

Appearing on Egyptian television before concluding a four-day trip in Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg extolled the virtues of the U.S. Constitution but urged Egyptians to look to other countries' newer constitutions for guidance as they craft their own in the coming months.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo's website noted in a Feb. 2 release that Ginsburg concluded her trip to Egypt "following four days of discussions and programs in both Cairo and Alexandria with judges and legal experts as well as law faculty and students." She had intended to "'listen and learn' with her Egyptian counterparts as they begin Egypt's constitutional transition to democracy," according to the embassy.

Yet while Ginsburg's interview, posted on YouTube on Wednesday, lauded the Founding Fathers' "grand general ideas that become more effective over the course of ... more than two sometimes-turbulent centuries," she also said she "would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans.

Since World War II several other models have emerged that offer more specific and contemporary guarantees of rights and liberties, she said, pointing to South Africa's constitution, which she called a "really great piece of work" for its embrace of basic human rights and guarantee of an independent judiciary. She also noted Canada's charter of rights and freedoms and the European Convention of Human Rights.

"Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," she said.

Among those currently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court no other justice has publicly advised another country on the creation of a constitution. In 1960, eight years before he became a justice, Thurgood Marshall traveled to Kenya to draft its bill of rights, which he modeled after the European Convention on Human Rights. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Kenyan document guarantees rights to education, health, welfare and a right to work.

Nevertheless, Ginsburg spent most of the 18-minute interview spelling out all the ways the Egyptians could take inspiration from the United States' Constitution, from the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and a free press to the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause that she, as a lawyer in the 1970s, convinced the court to expand to protect women's rights.

"We were just tremendously fortunate in the United States that the men who met in Philadelphia were very wise," Ginsburg said. "Now it is true that they were lacking one thing," she continued with a chuckle. "And that is that there were no women as part of the Constitutional Convention."

"It's a very inspiring time -- that you have overthrown a dictator and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy," Ginsburg told Al Hayat TV. "I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work and that it will genuinely be a government of, by and for the people."

Jan. 25 marked the one-year anniversary since the start of the Tahrir Square protests that toppled President Hosni Mubarak's nearly three-decade regime.

When asked by her interviewer how best to draft a constitution and protect it from contemporary political pressures (perhaps alluding to Islamic parties' dominance in the new parliament's lower house), Justice Ginsburg answered, "A constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom."

"If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference," she said.

"The spirit of liberty," she continued, "has to be in the population."

Comments

[BobTrent]

09:05 AM on 04/12/2012

Slaves were not denied citizenship until the disastrous Dred Scott v. Taney decision of the US Supreme Court. The majority ignored the fact that slaves were counted as citizens by the decennial census. The 3/5 multiplier was not applied until the totals were in. Census takers did not put down "3/5" for each slave, or count only 3 out of every 5 slaves. They counted them all.

[BobTrent]

09:04 AM on 04/12/2012

Mike Sacks wrote: "... given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans."
Slaves were not excluded by the Constitution. Slaves and slavery were not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights until the 13th amendment was added.
In the original Constitution "other Persons" and "such Persons" are referred to. This is an euphemism for what the framers understood as "slaves."
Free Blacks voted in some states and not in others, by custom or legislation.
Contrary to common allegations slaves were not considered as 3/5 of a person each. Each individual slave was counted, therefore they were citizens. Slaves also were taxed, both when imported and for as long as they were slaves. Noncitizens were not counted in with citizens. Indians not taxed were not counted in with citizens either.
The 3/5 compromise was the result of the free (nonslavery) states not wanting slaves counted as citizens - represented in the House of Representatives - while the slave states wanted them counted in with citizens. Counting slaves as citizens increased the number of representatives each state, and all the slave states together, had in Congress.
That slaves were not allowed to vote does not mean they were not citizens. Women were not allowed to vote again until Wyoming extended the franchise in 1869 when still a territory, not a state yet.

[BobTrent]

07:54 AM on 04/12/2012

Mike Sacks wrote: "... given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans."
Women were not excluded by the Constitution. No mention is made of denying any rights, privileges or immunities to women that were accorded to men.
Nothing in the original Constitution or Bill of Rights denied the vote to women.
Nothing in the original Constitution or Bill of Rights denied women public offices.
Women were prevented from voting by custom and legislation, just as minors under 18, noncitizens and certain other classes are to this day. To abolish all such laws that prevented women voting in federal elections, amendment 19 was added to the Constitution.
Indians (Native Americans*) were not excluded by the Constitution from any rights, privileges (rights to do things) or immunities (rights not to have things done to one). Indians who left their tribes and submitted to taxation were not excluded by the Constitution from any rights, privileges or immunities.
*A native American is a person born in America whose ancestors were native Americans. I am a native American as my personal immigrant ancestors all arrived in North America from 1665 to before 1700. I am related to "Indians" though to the best of my knowledge none of my ancestors were "Indians."

[LARRY LOU CHRISTIAN]

01:03 AM on 04/04/2012

Whenever we hear treacherous people like Ginsburg, who reveal themselves by uttering seditious words regarding the Constitution of the United States, we are reminded of the the following words of wisdom…………

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." ~ Abraham Lincoln

If any revisions are necessary in this "radically changing society" it would be to not allow presidents to appoint SCOTUS justices.

[BobTrent]

12:41 PM on 04/12/2012

Larry, what would be your method of appointing them?
Elected by the Senate (current system)? Then how would they nominated?
Elected by the House?
Elected by the full Congress?
Direct election by the "People"?
Elected for life (during good Behavior)? Or for a limited term?

[LARRY LOU CHRISTIAN]

09:16 PM on 04/14/2012

Dear BobTrent,

An acceptable arrangement that would effectively remove the President's involvement.

For balance, I would envision a Senate panel [chosen by lottery system] with an equal number of members from both parties who would take applications for this position, then eliminate and elect new SCOTUS members by due process. Possibly even a further step……..this Senate panel might present a balanced number of candidates for a national vote that would require a Rep. candidate for every Dem candidate on the ballot.

Term: limited.

Albeit there are unforeseen flaws….. my motive is equity and a bi-partisanship attitude.

[Sting81]

10:57 AM on 02/22/2012

she is advocating for a broader definition of rights for all people in a radically changing country. why don't we applaud her humanitarianism in this instance instead of flipping the whole thing into 'she thinks the us constitution is wrong and hates the us'. with any discretion one can see that she has not torn the constitution to shreds, but merely pointed out several weaknesses in its lack of inclusion for all peoples. and why not use more recent constitutions to help in Egypt? America is not the only place where good ideas are born. we must be willing look to others who share our ideals to help in the struggle to bring basic freedoms and rights to all people.

[Samsdog212]

06:33 PM on 02/11/2012

Add this to the list of things I couldn't have imagined seeing in my lifetime. A Supreme Court justice who dislikes the Constitution she swore to preserve, protect, and defend. Doesn't sound like she's defending it all that great to me. America, the rot has set in. This country will be gone completely by the year 2025. Too bad too. We were once a great nation.

[montestruc]

12:02 PM on 02/11/2012

The problem with this endorsement of other documents is not that they are foreign, it is that they fundamentally assert a right to steal. Their is no such thing as a "right" to get positive economic goods for free as those goods are not free. They cost materials and labor to produce that someone must provide. The only way a government can provide things is by taxation of citizens.

Taxation of citizens for the personal individual good of specific other citizens is a form of theft by extortion.

[BobTrent]

07:30 AM on 04/12/2012

Hah. ALL taxation is theft.
Humanity just hasn't come up with a better way to provide protection for both individuals and society than taxation.
I do understand your point: that using the power of the state (the government's gun) to take from Peter without his consent to give to Paul is theft. Even if Paul does something he thinks beneficial to Peter in return for what is taken from Peter.
When government takes from Peter to give to Paul, the politicians will always have Paul's vote. Because Paul is at heart a thief and a slavemaster. Most "Pauls" don't want to admit this to themselves and certainly don't want to be shot by Peter, so they get together and hire gunmen (the state) through the vote to gang up on Peter and intimidate him with their numbers and power.

[montestruc]

08:58 AM on 04/12/2012

One can make that argument. However nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum as much or more than any other type.

If you don't set up a government of minimal limited authority with enough power to prevent its overthrow by would be tyrants from both within and without, you wind up back under a tyranny. Read your Machiavelli, and Sun Tzu and lots of history.

As you point out that leaves the riddle of how to pay for the government. Worse, the people setting up the government must work quickly and correctly to set it up before some tyrant with an army big enough to beat you does so.

I cannot say that the founders of the USA did a bad job of it. But they had extraordinary circumstances that are unlikely to repeat, ever.

Perfect is the deadly enemy of "good enough".

In principle I agree that taxes are evil-- how do we get rid of them altogether?

[beaker55]

11:06 PM on 02/10/2012

... women as part of the Convention? Jeez, Ms. Ginsburg, are your remarks SEXIST or WHAT?! The founders used the term "men" in the stilted language of their era. Intelligent readers understand they meant everyone, male or female, but the Liberal mind thinks because there’s so many of those old-timey words in the Constitution, it's appropriate only for some forgotten era when politicians powdered their wigs. Liberals don't understand that words actually mean specific things and the founders were legal sticklers in the documents they crafted. They completely understood something the Left and Bill Clinton still doesn't get: You can parse the language all you want... but the truth is still as self-evident as that $#!+ eatin' grin on your smirking face... is. Ginsburg's an old Socialist who thinks like an old Socialist. If the founders had wanted a Democracy (Socialist or otherwise), they would have included the word 'Democracy' in the Declaration or the Constitution... but, they did NOT include the word ANYWHERE! Wanna guess WHY? (there's a reason...look it up, you might finally learn something). Democrats are either ignorant in their understanding, OR they actually WANT a different form of Government than the U.S. Constitution authorized. Ignorance may be excusable, but subversion of the U.S. Constitution is a crime. Ms. Ginsburg stopped short of treason and therefore may be considered simply ignorant. Pity, the modern Liberal mind.

[BobTrent]

01:22 PM on 04/12/2012

Abigail Adams to John Adams, March 31, 1776

"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

"Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.

"Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.

"That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute; but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up -- the harsh tide of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend.

"Why, then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity?

"Men of sense in all ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the (servants) of your sex; regard us then as being placed by Providence under your protection, and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness."

[BobTrent]

01:25 PM on 04/12/2012

John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 14, 1776

"As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh.

"We have been told that our struggle has loosened the bonds of government everywhere; that children and apprentices were disobedient; that schools and colleges were grown turbulent; that Indians slighted their guardians, and negroes grew insolent to their masters.

"But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe, more numerous and powerful than all the rest, were grown discontented.

"This is rather too coarse a compliment, but you are so saucy, I won't blot it out.

"Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects.

"We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight."

[GoHelen]

04:33 PM on 02/09/2012

Human rights are for people who act like human beings. They rape babies to cure AIDS.

[bluesister22]

03:15 PM on 02/09/2012

Ginsburg should resign now! She should be upholding the Constitution not putting it down in favor of S.Africa's constitution...Let her go and live in S. Africa...we don't want her as a judge.

[AlfredE69]

08:27 AM on 02/09/2012

'Justice' Ginsburg, resign.

[Gone 1 20 13]

02:37 PM on 02/09/2012

No no no .... bad idea. If she resigns, Barack will replace her with a very young leftist who will be on the high court for decades to come. As despicable as I find her statements (and her views in general), I hope she hangs around until we have a Republican President.

[AlfredE69]

10:14 PM on 02/09/2012

thank you for your reply. all the best

[banana republican]

08:25 PM on 02/07/2012

This illustrates a very real problem with the life time appointments. The Constitution is the institution and the justices' job is to safe guard the institution. But after many years, the justices begin to perceive THEMSELVES as the institution and the constitution as one of their tools - tools that they can adjust as they deem appropriate. It erodes the very foundation of this (once) great nation.

[UPrailroader]

03:50 PM on 02/07/2012

It's no wonder Justice Ginsburg doesn't recommend any country using the US Constitution as a model after the way our Supreme Court has distorted, changed, hijacked and completely destroyed the most important document very wise men have ever created. Her and the rest of the Supreme Court should be ashamed. There comes a time in everyones life when it's time to step down. The being appointed for life is totally rediculous. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[EyeontheLaw]

08:07 PM on 02/06/2012

Are you comfortable with Ms. Ginsburg being on the US Supreme Court or should she be removed? Please vote at http://eyeonthelaw.blogspot.com/

[ByThePowerOfGrayskull]

05:25 PM on 02/06/2012

She's an old goat who doesn't particularly care for the United States of America.