What's your brand of constitutional interpretation?

[Ringel05]

Amendment is of course part of the intended process, but revision based on whatever current judge is interpreting isn't.

You can have a living document with amendment being the agent of change, not the judges.

Amendment - as I understand it - is a major process and possibly limited to the big questions. I do think that amendment of a written constitution should be, not difficult, but a process of slow and lengthy deliberation. Since popular opinion is easily inflamed (I'm half-remembering those words from somewhere, I hope to hell I'm not referencing Goebbels ). An amendment shouldn't lie solely with legislators. Truth is I don't know how the process should be mixed up between the various stakeholders (jargon watch! I wrote "stakeholders"!) but no one grouping should have ultimate control of the process to the exclusion of others.

Interpretation is not amendment. Interpretation is part of the process of application. I don't see how anyone other than a country's highest court can do that. It is the duty of the judges.

So you're saying that depending on who the judge is the same law could and should be interpreted differently? And at different times, depending on what's going on in the world, it could be interpreted differently?

Wow. Uhm, no. That's not what judges do.

Judges, not judge. Why do you think the Supreme Court nomination/ratification process can be so contentious at times.
The way I was taught was the Judicial Branch interpreted the laws based on the constitution, said laws constitutionality and limits. Unfortunately this has not always happened, primarily when the intent as described in the founding father's writings are misinterpreted or ignored.

 

[goldcatt]

Wait, are you talking about statutory interpretation or constitutional interpretation? Different rules apply.

 

[Xenophon]

It should be applied as written and not interpreted, it isn't cuniform.

If part of it no longer works or is unwanted there is a procedure for change.

Of course, the current government just ignores it now.

 

[Intense]

Amendment - as I understand it - is a major process and possibly limited to the big questions. I do think that amendment of a written constitution should be, not difficult, but a process of slow and lengthy deliberation. Since popular opinion is easily inflamed (I'm half-remembering those words from somewhere, I hope to hell I'm not referencing Goebbels ). An amendment shouldn't lie solely with legislators. Truth is I don't know how the process should be mixed up between the various stakeholders (jargon watch! I wrote "stakeholders"!) but no one grouping should have ultimate control of the process to the exclusion of others.

Interpretation is not amendment. Interpretation is part of the process of application. I don't see how anyone other than a country's highest court can do that. It is the duty of the judges.

So you're saying that depending on who the judge is the same law could and should be interpreted differently? And at different times, depending on what's going on in the world, it could be interpreted differently?

Wow. Uhm, no. That's not what judges do.

Judges, not judge. Why do you think the Supreme Court nomination/ratification process can be so contentious at times.
The way I was taught was the Judicial Branch interpreted the laws based on the constitution, said laws constitutionality and limits. Unfortunately this has not always happened, primarily when the intent as described in the founding father's writings are misinterpreted or ignored.

Primarily when the Intent as described in the Founding Father's writings are misrepresented, and these misrepresentations are taught to others.

 

[Ringel05]

It should be applied as written and not interpreted, it isn't cuniform.

If part of it no longer works or is unwanted there is a procedure for change.

Of course, the current government just ignores it now.

A quote I read somewhere goes something like this:
Republicans recognize there is a constitution and treat it with distain. Democrats have never heard of it.

 

[Oddball]

What's your brand of constitutional interpretation?

Both constitutional and semantic constructionist....No interpretation needed.

The interpretation thingy is part and parcel to the "living rules" crowd, who are in fact in favor of no rules at all.....save for the rules made up out of whole cloth as they go along.

 

[Xenophon]

It's amazing how they find things in it that aern't written in it.

 

[PixieStix]

What's your brand of constitutional interpretation?

Both constitutional and semantic constructionist....No interpretation needed.

The interpretation thingy is part and parcel to the "living rules" crowd, who are in fact in favor of no rules at all.....save for the rules made up out of whole cloth as they go along.

That is the most perfect answer I have seen thus far

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

It should be applied as written and not interpreted, it isn't cuniform.

If part of it no longer works or is unwanted there is a procedure for change.

Of course, the current government just ignores it now.

It is impossible to read the Constitution, and not interpret what you read. That goes for anything you read. To state that the Constitution should not be interpreted in any manner what so ever, is dangerous and naive.

 

[Xenophon]

It should be applied as written and not interpreted, it isn't cuniform.

If part of it no longer works or is unwanted there is a procedure for change.

Of course, the current government just ignores it now.

It is impossible to read the Constitution, and not interpret what you read. That goes for anything you read. To state that the Constitution should not be interpreted in any manner what so ever, is dangerous and naive.

What a rediculous post.

The words in it are easily understandable, they don't need substitutions, IE 'interpretation.'

Such a ludicrous attempt at semantics should rightly be treated with contempt.

 

[Oddball]

It is impossible to read the Constitution, and not interpret what you read. That goes for anything you read. To state that the Constitution should not be interpreted in any manner what so ever, is dangerous and naive.

You must be a racist!!

 

[Xenophon]

It is impossible to read the Constitution, and not interpret what you read. That goes for anything you read. To state that the Constitution should not be interpreted in any manner what so ever, is dangerous and naive.

You must be a racist!!

Idiot is more likely.

 

[Richard-H]

The Constitution is a type of contract and should be adhered to as such - that is as much as is realistic. There will always have to be SOME interpetation and that interpetation should first be made in light of the philosophies upon which the constitution was based. For example, using the French 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen' as a strong refrence.

At the same time, interpetation of the constitution must be practical and workable. But beyond that, the greater principles of the Constitution and it's underlying philosophiy must override the particular clauses (when there's a contradiction).

For example - 'Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else' must supercede the the right of free speech - i.e. 'you can't scream 'fire!' in a movie theater - it violates the rights of the other patrons.

The statement 'We the people...do ordain', strongly implies the principle of separation between church and state, thereby disallowing a narrow interpetation of the first amendment '
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

Practicality and workability require that no freedom is an unlimited freedom and that with all freedoms come responsibilty. When freedoms are excercised without responsibilty - that is the exercise of a lesser right violates the greater principles of the Constitution, then the Governement is responsible to enforce the limitation of that freedom.

Unfortunately, the process of amending the Constitution is so difficult that for the constitution to be remain relavant it must be interpeted.

 

[Vast LWC]

I find it interesting that traditionally religious types, Conservatives and such, are in more favor of a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

However, I am also in favor of a literal interpretation of the Consititution, strangely enough, I just have a different interpretation of what it "literally" says.

For instance, and what probably led directly to this thread, when I see the term "Provide for the General Welfare" I believe it means, literally, just that. Provide for the general welfare.

I happen to think that Health Care is included in the category of General Welfare, just like Machine Guns are included in the category "Provide for the Common Defense".

That is a literal interpretation, just not one that some people happen to agree with.

Now, the bible, on the other hand, is very open to non-literal interpretation, IMO.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

What's your brand of constitutional interpretation?

Both constitutional and semantic constructionist....No interpretation needed.

The interpretation thingy is part and parcel to the "living rules" crowd, who are in fact in favor of no rules at all.....save for the rules made up out of whole cloth as they go along.

I disagree. See my previous post. I don't subscribe to the kind of interpretation you are referring to.

When we were learning how to read, we were interpreting the various letters, sounds, and words before us. It is impossible to read, and not interpret what you read, in some form or fashion. I am not saying make the Constitution say whatever you "feel" like on a Friday.

You and I both know that the Constitution gets bastardized all the time, because people separate text and historical background from Constitution. There are parts of the Constitution that are not crystal clear. We have to properly interpret the Constitution, to get its proper meaning. I have seen you cite the Federalist Papers numerous times to people, just as I have, when speaking of various Clauses of the Constitution. Why did you do that? So people could understand the proper context of a particular passage, that may not have been crystal clear.

 

[Vast LWC]

It should be applied as written and not interpreted, it isn't cuniform.

If part of it no longer works or is unwanted there is a procedure for change.

Of course, the current government just ignores it now.

It is impossible to read the Constitution, and not interpret what you read. That goes for anything you read. To state that the Constitution should not be interpreted in any manner what so ever, is dangerous and naive.

What a rediculous post.

The words in it are easily understandable, they don't need substitutions, IE 'interpretation.'

Such a ludicrous attempt at semantics should rightly be treated with contempt.

Such a contemptuous attitude should be treated as ludicrous.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

It is impossible to read the Constitution, and not interpret what you read. That goes for anything you read. To state that the Constitution should not be interpreted in any manner what so ever, is dangerous and naive.

You must be a racist!!

Idiot is more likely.

I am not an idiot. Your brain had to interpret the words on the computer screen, in order for you to even be able to reply with your MENSA reply. Putting aside the mechanics of reading, your mind interprets what is stated on this board, whether it is through personal experience, projection, bias, prejudice, fear etc. When you give words merit or disavow them, you are interpreting them.

 

[Xenophon]

I disagree.

No, you attempted to belittle me, when in fact you said something stupid.

This is the definition of interpet:


in⋅ter⋅pret  /ɪnˈtɜrprɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-tur-prit] Show IPA
Use interpret in a Sentence
–verb (used with object) 1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
2. to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.
3. to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution.
4. to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity: The actor interpreted Lear as a weak, pitiful old man.

---------------------------

The words of the Constitution already provide their own meaning, nothing further is needed.

What you did was try to show us how cool you think you are by attempting to belittle what I said.

Do not attempt that again, next time I won't be so nice about it.

Count on it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

It is impossible to read the Constitution, and not interpret what you read. That goes for anything you read. To state that the Constitution should not be interpreted in any manner what so ever, is dangerous and naive.

You must be a racist!!

Dude! I haven't been called racist on the board yet. I am sure it is coming though. Sooner or later. I have been called an idiot twice today, because people didn't like the ugly truth. lol

 

[Xenophon]

I am not an idiot.

Egomaniac would also apply.