Certainly not our Progressive Supreme Court Justices. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg doesn’t even think our Constitution is a worthy for others drafting a new one:
I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.
I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary.
The South African constitution is interesting for how it treats individual rights and Justice Ginsburg’s independent judiciary. There’s this on rights [emphasis added]:
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.
Their Constitution notes this in its Preamble:
We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic
It wasn’t even adopted directly by the people, as ours was, just by their government.
Their Constitution notes this about their Bill of Rights [emphasis added]:
( 1) This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.
(3) The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill
Here is what Section 36 says about limiting those “Rights.
36. Limitation of rights.-
(1) 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, taking into account all relevant factors, including-
(a) the nature of the right;
(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
(c) the nature and extent of the limitation;
(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
(e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.
The Government gave, the Government hath taken away.
I won’t go into the vasty enumeration of “fundamental” rights (34 pages worth!), that is an enshrinement of “rights” that are the fallout of individual decisions made under our Creator-given and inalienable ones.
Now here is Justice Ginsberg’s “independent” judiciary
(4) Only the Constitutional Court may-
(6) decide on the constitutionality of any amendment to the Constitution:
And this [emphasis added]
173. Inherent power.-
The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice….
This isn’t “independent.” This is superior, the final despot. The people aren’t to be allowed to decide for themselves what their Constitution will say. Ultimately, the people’s representatives will not be permitted to make the law in their name—the courts’ common law will overwhelm.
This is what a Progressive Justice of the Supreme Court thinks is a superior constitution.