Judicial Activism vs Interpretation

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.
So, tell us what they meant when they used the word "Liberty".
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.
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.

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.
 
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.
So, tell us what they meant when they used the word "Liberty".
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, you will notice you didn't actually read the quote. Try again. I'll even cut it down to the most relevant parts:

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.
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.

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.
The Constitution was more like enlistment papers, you sign up and it's for life. We discovered that in the Civil War.
 
Typing in large font makes me appear smarter!

The only distinction between "Judicial activism" and "Judicial interpretation" is whether the speaker agrees or disagrees.



And in our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC any ruling which forces us to comply with a federal mandate or tax should be immediately consider an USURPATION and thereafter opposed by any means necessary.

Specially when the mandate or edict was adopted in secret, late at night during Christmas eve, ie, the "income" tax and Obama Hellcare.



.
 
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.
So, tell us what they meant when they used the word "Liberty".
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, you will notice you didn't actually read the quote. Try again. I'll even cut it down to the most relevant parts:

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.
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.

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.
"The parties to the contract determine it's meaning, no one else." Not when they do not agree on what it means. Then, guess what, they go to a Judge and he interprets the contract based on the plain meaning, if there is a plain meaning, and, if not, based on the context of the words and the intent of the parties. You know as little about Contract law as you do Constitutional law.
 
We're not quite to the point of all-out violent tyranny yet but we're rapidly approaching it. They want to disarm as many of us as possible before they start shooting.

Ah, vague and thuggish threats of violence. Followed immediately by chickenshit excuses why you won't be fighting.

You're in excellent company. As most of your ilk have the same excuses why its always someone *else* that should be fighting and bleeding.
You have a vivid imagination to get that out of my comment, but then again, dishonesty and diversion is your primary tactic.

So when you referred to 'shooting', you were making reference to cameras? And 'disarm' was removing people's limbs?

Or were you referring to guns and killing people?
You have the mind of a 12 year old and you're not interested in a serious discussion. Fuck off.

I have no problems with talking. But thuggish threats aren't really a conversation. They're the rhetorical equivalent of shitting in your hand and throwing it.

So far the OP has yet to do anything more than beg a question or two. Which I've questioned.


So when the government usurps powers and enforces tyranny free people are supposed to grin and bear it?.
 
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny


Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

********

How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.


It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.



.


.

It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.

If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.



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.


Should It Be Illegal to Interpret the Constitution as a Living Document?


Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator from Missouri, is apparently so taken by what he perceives to be the charms of this approach that he wants to outlaw all other forms of constitutional interpretation. To that end, Nieves has introduced a bill, SJR 45, that would amend the Missouri constitution to require all state officials to “interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage.” Moreover, the bill continues:

Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a "living, breathing document", or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government."


Of course, Mr Nieves is correct.


Any "interpretaion" which does not take into effect what the Constitution states or what the founding fathers intended ought to constitute treason to the Constitution and the judges promptly impeached.


.
 
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny


Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

********

How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.


It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.



.


.

It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.

If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.



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.


Should It Be Illegal to Interpret the Constitution as a Living Document?


Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator from Missouri, is apparently so taken by what he perceives to be the charms of this approach that he wants to outlaw all other forms of constitutional interpretation. To that end, Nieves has introduced a bill, SJR 45, that would amend the Missouri constitution to require all state officials to “interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage.” Moreover, the bill continues:

Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a "living, breathing document", or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government."


Of course, Mr Nieves is correct.


Any "interpretaion" which does not take into effect what the Constitution states or what the founding fathers intended ought to constitute treason to the Constitution and the judges promptly impeached.


.

Impeachment is no longer an option, unless the republican party gets a super majority of conservatives in the senate. I just don't see them getting 67 real conservatives, ever.
 
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny


Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

********

How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.


It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.



.


.

It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.

If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.



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.


Should It Be Illegal to Interpret the Constitution as a Living Document?


Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator from Missouri, is apparently so taken by what he perceives to be the charms of this approach that he wants to outlaw all other forms of constitutional interpretation. To that end, Nieves has introduced a bill, SJR 45, that would amend the Missouri constitution to require all state officials to “interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage.” Moreover, the bill continues:

Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a "living, breathing document", or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government."


Of course, Mr Nieves is correct.


Any "interpretaion" which does not take into effect what the Constitution states or what the founding fathers intended ought to constitute treason to the Constitution and the judges promptly impeached.


.

Impeachment is no longer an option, unless the republican party gets a super majority of conservatives in the senate. I just don't see them getting 67 real conservatives, ever.
Since you have exactly zero now, that's a fair point.
 
It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.

If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.



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.


Should It Be Illegal to Interpret the Constitution as a Living Document?


Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator from Missouri, is apparently so taken by what he perceives to be the charms of this approach that he wants to outlaw all other forms of constitutional interpretation. To that end, Nieves has introduced a bill, SJR 45, that would amend the Missouri constitution to require all state officials to “interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage.” Moreover, the bill continues:

Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a "living, breathing document", or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government."


Of course, Mr Nieves is correct.


Any "interpretaion" which does not take into effect what the Constitution states or what the founding fathers intended ought to constitute treason to the Constitution and the judges promptly impeached.


.

Impeachment is no longer an option, unless the republican party gets a super majority of conservatives in the senate. I just don't see them getting 67 real conservatives, ever.
Since you have exactly zero now, that's a fair point.

We have about 35, but that's not enough. All of the establishment guys and gals would have to go and replaced by conservatives, plus other required gains, I don't see it happening short of ISIS detonating a nuclear bomb in DC where we could start fresh.
 
35 states don't want gay marriage. The number was 15. The rest were forced by lower federal courts.
 
Who says that the cases were decided based on personal views and not the constitution?
The Constitution says so. There's nowhere before last Friday that it had a class of "just some of the SCOTUS' favorite deviant sex behaviors, but not others (polygamy/incest etc.)". That unworkable new class was added last Friday. The problem is, substantive changes to the Constitution can only be done by the Legislative Branch so the Ruling last Friday was unconstitutional.
 
THE "ACA" CHALLENGE WAS UPHELD BECAUSE JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT WANT LATE NIGHT COMEDIANS AND OTHER CRITICS TO MOCK OR CRITICIZE THE COURT, IE, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TRUMPS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Says you, pretending you are Justice Roberts. Back in reality, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rendering your little game where you pretend you're the Chief Justice something best suited for 4 year olds and imaginary tea.

A CONSTITUTIONAL TAX IS ONE USED TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY , NOT ONE USED TO SUPPORT SKYLAR AND HER PARASITIC HOMIES

Says you. Citing you. And we don't use you to define a 'constitutional tax'.

Do you have anything but begging the question fallacies and statements of empty personal opinion? Because in a contest of legality between you and the USSC, the USSC wins every time.

THE MARRIAGE CASE WAS CORRECT BECAUSE WE HAVE A ****NINTH AMENDMENT****** RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS. OF COURSE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED TO ABOLISH THE NINTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE FROM THEIR FASCISTIC STANDPOINT , THEY AND NOT THE CONSTITUTION , GRANT RIGHTS.

.They recognize rights. And the right to marry is one that they have recognized.


Says me , because as a US citizen it is my responsibility to GUARD the Constitution.


As a former GI, it is my job to support and defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES foreign OR DOMESTIC.




.
 
Wrong, impartial application of the Constitution is the roll of the judiciary, the founders did the interpretation, that's why the wrote it down.

Says you. The Federalist Papers have a different take:

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

o.
Is merging the Communist Manifesto into the US Constitution (1787) and interpretation of the latter?
 
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny


Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

********

How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.


It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.



.


.

It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.

If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.



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.



Discuss clearly and succintly the reason Obama Hellcare is a JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AS OPPOSED TO JUDICIAL BETRAYAL.



.
 

Forum List

Back
Top