What a "dictionary" from the time says is completely and utterly irrelevant. A dictionary definition of "due" and "process" does not tell us a damn thing about how to apply to term to matters that arise. The notion that constitutional law requires nothing more than applying the "original" meaning of words in the constitution appeals only to those without the intellectual capacity to truly understand the strength of the Constitution. Hanging people for stealing horses was not considered "cruel and unusual" then. Society has changed; our values have changed what we know about human nature has changed. The words of the constitution do not change, but how they are applied is different today.So, tell us what they meant when they used the word "Liberty".WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTITUTION (1787) THE CONSTITUTION MEANS WHAT IT SAYS OR WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED.
.
Interpreting the constitution is the role of the judiciary. Its what they are supposed to do.
Wrong, impartial application of the Constitution is the roll of the judiciary, the founders did the interpretation, that's why they wrote it down.Maybe the court should invest in dictionaries of the time the Constitution was written, maybe things wouldn't be so vague. The words were put on paper for a reason and with much deliberation.
Then get a dictionary and tell us....what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically, not generally. As the law has to get very specific. What is 'probable' cause? Specifically, and in real world terms.
Both using only the constitution and no other source. Good luck with that.
And you didn't even try resolve what happens when 2 rights come in conflict with each other.
Screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater where your use of free speech directly endangers other's right to life? Can one balance the other? When does 'life' begin? Can you fire a gun into a crowd of people.......if you don't actually hit any of them? Does the 2nd amendment include nuclear weapons?
These are pretty straight forward questions. But they stumped you cold. If the constitution were as clear as you say, then why the evasion? They should be trivially easy to answer.
But they aren't, are they?
Also it you notice Hamilton said the court should interpret laws, not the Constitution.
Also, you will notice you didn't actually read the quote. Try again. I'll even cut it down to the most relevant parts:
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
Federalist Paper 78
Now tell us...what is the 'it' in 'its meaning'. Who is the 'them' in 'it therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'?
Explain it to us. And remember, any attempt at semantic words games demonstrates my point for the need for interpretation. And proves me right.
Tell me, how do you ascertain the meaning of the written word without looking at the definition and common usage of those words in place at the time the words were put on paper?
Hint, word usage evolves over time and dictionaries are changed to reflect common usage at the time of their publication.
So not even an attempt to define any of the terms in the constitution you insist are so simple to define. Despite all of your assurances of how easy and simple it would be, with nothing more than a dictionary.
Yet you can't to do it.
You're demonstrating how subjective these terms are and how difficult they are to define. Your every rout is another proof of my point. These are not easy terms to define, especially in the specific terms that real world law requires. Interpretation is required. Especially when one right is balanced against another. Which you also run from like they were on fire.
Oh, and did you finally read the Hamilton quote? You know the 'it' and the 'them' in ' It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning'. Just because you refuse to address it doesn't mean Federalist Paper 78 vanishes:
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78
But you know better than Hamilton, huh?
Um, no.
I'll tell ya what, I will get my hands on a dictionary from the time and we'll continue the conversation then. I'm not going to play your word games.
Doesn't work that way in contracts, the Constitution is a contract between the States, the parties to the contract determine it's meaning, no one else.