100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: America wins again. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The idea that a Supreme Court Justice either "interprets the law according to the Constitution" or they don't, has always been a mistake. Mainly because too many people wildly over-simplify what it actually means to do that. Reality is far more complex and subtle than that. The Constitution is a collection of mostly very general statements, not a list of narrow specifics, that anyone can read and say (especially after 1789) means exactly one thing and nothing else. It is in the nature of the rule of law itself, for that matter, that people are at the mercy of the way words were written at the time that a law is passed, more than they are served by the INTENTIONS of the people who wrote them. Some classic examples, are that according to a totally dry reading of the Constitution, which assumes (as some claim to want) that the Federal Government only be allowed to do specifically what is said that is can do, and not one thing more, there would have been no Louisiana Purchase, no interstate highway system, no exploration of Space, no international communications systems, and on and on. ALL of those things and vastly more, are the result of all sorts of people interpreting the Constitution entirely differently than a word-for-word reading permits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that a Supreme Court Justice either "interprets the law according to the Constitution" or they don't, has always been a mistake. Mainly because too many people wildly over-simplify what it actually means to do that. Reality is far more complex and subtle than that. The Constitution is a collection of mostly very general statements, not a list of narrow specifics, that anyone can read and say (especially after 1789) means exactly one thing and nothing else. It is in the nature of the rule of law itself, for that matter, that people are at the mercy of the way words were written at the time that a law is passed, more than they are served by the INTENTIONS of the people who wrote them. Some classic examples, are that according to a totally dry reading of the Constitution, which assumes (as some claim to want) that the Federal Government only be allowed to do specifically what is said that is can do, and not one thing more, there would have been no Louisiana Purchase, no interstate highway system, no exploration of Space, no international communications systems, and on and on. ALL of those things and vastly more, are the result of all sorts of people interpreting the Constitution entirely differently than a word-for-word reading permits. Chief Justice's Warren and Burger publicly made the statements they will push the constitution as far as they can if they want. Unfortunately we're still having to live with their reinterpretation of the constitution. The words written in the constitution were written to say want they wanted. The constitution was established more to limit those who are governmental leaders than to limit the people. Reading the writings of writers of the constitution gives a lot of enlightenment on what they believed and defines what they wrote in the constitution. It's quite obvious that some don't like the constitution and would like to overturn parts of it. Saying it's highly complex and difficult to interpret opens the door to interpret it any way the wind blows. The Constitutional Convention made many drafts and many revisions to the Constitution. Better, perhaps, to note when the Convention started, May 25, 1787; and when it adjourned, September 17, 1787, or 116 days. A group of people don't spend 116 days drawing up a document that will be nebulous in it's application. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
IgorFrankensteen
on
Sat 07/14/18 03:17 AM
|
|
The idea that a Supreme Court Justice either "interprets the law according to the Constitution" or they don't, has always been a mistake. Mainly because too many people wildly over-simplify what it actually means to do that. Reality is far more complex and subtle than that. The Constitution is a collection of mostly very general statements, not a list of narrow specifics, that anyone can read and say (especially after 1789) means exactly one thing and nothing else. It is in the nature of the rule of law itself, for that matter, that people are at the mercy of the way words were written at the time that a law is passed, more than they are served by the INTENTIONS of the people who wrote them. Some classic examples, are that according to a totally dry reading of the Constitution, which assumes (as some claim to want) that the Federal Government only be allowed to do specifically what is said that is can do, and not one thing more, there would have been no Louisiana Purchase, no interstate highway system, no exploration of Space, no international communications systems, and on and on. ALL of those things and vastly more, are the result of all sorts of people interpreting the Constitution entirely differently than a word-for-word reading permits. The point is, there is nothing in it saying that the Federal Government CAN purchase another half country. There's nothing it it which says "the federal government can build highways through the states." Those and MANY other things were only possible because various people decided to INTERPRET various statements and clauses as either permitting something not stated, or as implying that it may be done. Most of those who want a strict word for word reading of the Constitution don't realize this, and assume that whatever has been done or is being done which they LIKE, will continue to be done as it is, even though they completely destroy the legal ability of the government to do it, by demanding the literal readings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
indianadave4
on
Sat 07/14/18 05:04 PM
|
|
Most of those who want a strict word for word reading of the Constitution don't realize this, and assume that whatever has been done or is being done which they LIKE, will continue to be done as it is, even though they completely destroy the legal ability of the government to do it, by demanding the literal readings.
... and many who dislike the limits on federal government power want to stretch it to any length they can in order to take away the states rights. State politicians tend to respond to citizen pressure much more than federal elected officials. this is one big reason the founding fathers assigned some things to the state level yet we have federal government officials encroaching on state responsibilities. We've had federal and supreme court judges legislate law from the bench and the constitution limits legislation to congress. The judicial branch is to enforce laws written by congress only.Not stretch laws to suit their beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Trump made a good nomination Choice. Let's hope it goes through I watched it on tv yesterday and he is well qualified. I found the opposition rather odd. By the end of the presidents presentation they were all displaying anti-Kavanaugh signs. "How did they design, print and distribute those so fast"? The opposition had to have printed out protest signs for all four of the candidates. So open minded of them!. We, in Indiana, were hoping for the lady that was on the list. She graduated from and served as a law professor from Notre Dame University (10 miles from where I live). I did notice the signs also and wonder how they had them that quickly. 
I didn't know about the list . I was for anyone that would not have a libral mindset.! Think of all those African children wearing Hillary 2016 We Did It! Teeshirts. Liberals were never accused of being bright. look at the mitt Romney victory hats |
|
|
|
|
