What's your brand of constitutional interpretation?

[Vast LWC]

Any violation of the Constitution is a travesty.

Yes. It's the right of the states to secede, and to form their own union if they so choose.

And then it would be the right of the remaining union to invade said new union, if they considered it a threat, and "re-conquer" it, would it not?

Or is it your contention that the invasion of Nazi Germany was in fact un-constitutional?

No, where do you get that one nation has the right to invade another nation that has done no harm to it?

The south attacked Fort Sumpter, a Union fort. That, specifically, was what started the Civil War, not the declaration of secession.

Certainly it was not the ONLY reason for the civil war, but that act alone provided a Consitutional rationalization to declare war.

 

[lawbuff]

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.

Scalia, hates the term "Living document". Metaphor's /analogies are not only poetic.


One Justice, who's name escapes me now, said the Constitution can change at times, as we change clothes.

The Constitution must be interpreted on some issues, there is NO way around it.

Take the 4th AM's prohibition against UNreasonable searches, this has to be judicially interpreted, period!

When a matter of 1st impression is entertained, the Court must rule one way or another, right?

Take the 1st AM, is this subject to Judicial interpretation, sure.

The Constitution even explicitly gives Congress the authority to enforce certain AM's by legislation, therefore even Congress can effectively "ammend" if you will, the Constitution.

 

[Intense]

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.

Scalia, hates the term "Living document". Metaphor's /analogies are not only poetic.


One Justice, who's name escapes me now, said the Constitution can change at times, as we change clothes.

The Constitution must be interpreted on some issues, there is NO way around it.

Take the 4th AM's prohibition against UNreasonable searches, this has to be judicially interpreted, period!

When a matter of 1st impression is entertained, the Court must rule one way or another, right?

Take the 1st AM, is this subject to Judicial interpretation, sure.

The Constitution even explicitly gives Congress the authority to enforce certain AM's by legislation, therefore even Congress can effectively "ammend" if you will, the Constitution.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE


History and Scope of the Amendment
History .--Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the ''writs of assistance.'' But while the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the Colonies late and as a result of experience, 1 there was also a rich English experience to draw on. ''Every man's house is his castle'' was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated in Semayne's Case, decided in 1603. 2 A civil case of execution of process, Semayne's Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King's agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King's process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington, 3 one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself. 4


Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive ''of all the comforts of society,'' and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person's papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature ''contrary to the genius of the law of England.'' 5 Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a ''great judgment,'' ''one of the landmarks of English liberty,'' ''one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,'' and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment. 6


FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 1 of 6