Where in the Constitution authorty granted to re (or mis) interpret words?

[Gdjjr]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

 

[Thunk]

It's a liberal thing.

Misinterpret words until they mean what you want them to mean...like "marriage".

I love how they say the second amendment did not apply to the "individual".

And after 96 years of existence...all of a sudden the 14th amendment means drop a baby on our soil & it's automatically a US citizen.

The 14th amendment didn't mean that for it's first 96 years...but then a liberal came along (you know the rest).

 

[Ringel05]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

 

[Gdjjr]

It's a liberal thing.

Misinterpret words until they mean what you want them to mean...like "marriage".

I love how they say the second amendment did not apply to the "individual".

And after 96 years of existence...all of a sudden the 14th amendment means drop a baby on our soil & it's automatically a US citizen.

The 14th amendment didn't mean that for it's first 96 years...but then a liberal came along (you know the rest).

I think the most egregious is Roberts calling a fine a tax- also a Declaration of War is now an authorization to use Military Force- Homeland Security Act comes to mind as well- of course if one presumes the homeland wasn't secure then I suppose it isn't much of a stretch- there are many instances- shall not be infringed is the most egregious and blatant disrespect for their oath of office- of course I'm sure their excuse is an intentional misinterpretation as well- it's amazing how many can't so-called educated can't comprehend simple English-

 

[Gdjjr]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

That's not an authority- it's a restriction for what congress can't do.

 

[MisterBeale]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia

 

[MisterBeale]

[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. ... The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, ... but only a judge of Marshall's discernment could have recognized it.

— McCloskey, Robert G. (2010), The American Supreme Court, revised by Sanford Levinson (5th ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–27.

 

[Gdjjr]

[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. ... The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, ... but only a judge of Marshall's discernment could have recognized it.

— McCloskey, Robert G. (2010), The American Supreme Court, revised by Sanford Levinson (5th ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–27.

Sorry- I still don't see in the Constitution where that is a power granted- there are 13? Correct? Intentionally misinterpreting isn't one of them- words mean things- we're either a country governed by the rule of law or we're a country ruled by the edict of man- The Supreme Law is written in simple English, and nowhere does the constitution grant the power to intentionally misinterpret or reinterpret the words ratified- words have definition- without definition interpretation doesn't exist-

 

[Ringel05]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

That's not an authority- it's a restriction for what congress can't do.

Wow! Did you figure that out all on your own?

 

[MisterBeale]

[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. ... The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, ... but only a judge of Marshall's discernment could have recognized it.

— McCloskey, Robert G. (2010), The American Supreme Court, revised by Sanford Levinson (5th ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–27.

Sorry- I still don't see in the Constitution where that is a power granted- there are 13? Correct? Intentionally misinterpreting isn't one of them- words mean things- we're either a country governed by the rule of law or we're a country ruled by the edict of man- The Supreme Law is written in simple English, and nowhere does the constitution grant the power to intentionally misinterpret or reinterpret the words ratified- words have definition- without definition interpretation doesn't exist-

If you want a specific article that outline the Judiciary?

Article III

Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

They are the ones that officially interpret the meanings of the words of the Constitution. If you have a problem with the legally interpreted definitions of the historical framework from which we have come to understand how it has been put into practice, you have to look into case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

It can be found here in the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. ... The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, ... but only a judge of Marshall's discernment could have recognized it.

— McCloskey, Robert G. (2010), The American Supreme Court, revised by Sanford Levinson (5th ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–27.

Sorry- I still don't see in the Constitution where that is a power granted- there are 13? Correct? Intentionally misinterpreting isn't one of them- words mean things- we're either a country governed by the rule of law or we're a country ruled by the edict of man- The Supreme Law is written in simple English, and nowhere does the constitution grant the power to intentionally misinterpret or reinterpret the words ratified- words have definition- without definition interpretation doesn't exist-

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

 

[Oddball]

[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. ... The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, ... but only a judge of Marshall's discernment could have recognized it.

— McCloskey, Robert G. (2010), The American Supreme Court, revised by Sanford Levinson (5th ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–27.

Sorry- I still don't see in the Constitution where that is a power granted- there are 13? Correct? Intentionally misinterpreting isn't one of them- words mean things- we're either a country governed by the rule of law or we're a country ruled by the edict of man- The Supreme Law is written in simple English, and nowhere does the constitution grant the power to intentionally misinterpret or reinterpret the words ratified- words have definition- without definition interpretation doesn't exist-

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

USSC is a creation of congress, and has greatly exceeded its due authority since Marbury, numbnutz.

 

[Gdjjr]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

It can be found here in the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

That says absolutely nothing about the question I asked-

 

[Oddball]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

It can be found here in the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

That says absolutely nothing about the question I asked-

You'll have to pardon our resident drive-by blowhard...He has a handful of canned responses, which feature mentions of case law and/or how wrongheaded, bigoted, racist, misogynist, and homophobic everyone who isn't a blood-shooting-out-the-ears leftist moonbat is.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

So you are good with Dobbs ?

 

[HikerGuy83]

It's a liberal thing.

Misinterpret words until they mean what you want them to mean...like "marriage".

I love how they say the second amendment did not apply to the "individual".

And after 96 years of existence...all of a sudden the 14th amendment means drop a baby on our soil & it's automatically a US citizen.

The 14th amendment didn't mean that for it's first 96 years...but then a liberal came along (you know the rest).

I wanted to start looking at Selective Incorporation (as derived from the 14th).

 

[presonorek]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

The constitution is a piece of paper. A human being is stronger than a piece of paper. The constitution doesn't give authority to humans. Humans give authority to the constitution. That piece of paper ain't worth squat and neither are the people who are obligated to defend it.

Just think in terms of reality not in terms of what should be. You'll be much safer if you think that way. Human nature is human nature. You can't stop human beings from being human by writing down some things on a piece of paper. Only expect from humans the things that humans do. Like reinterpretation and misinterpretation. Those are realities. Submitting to an inanimate object. Well. That's being a little too naive and idealistic. I can't fault you. I was once that way not even that long ago. Now I see things through reality instead of American Idealism. The United States of America has never existed in my lifetime other than in my own head. It doesn't even exist there any more.

 

[Mac-7]

It's a liberal thing.

Misinterpret words until they mean what you want them to mean...like "marriage".

I love how they say the second amendment did not apply to the "individual".

And after 96 years of existence...all of a sudden the 14th amendment means drop a baby on our soil & it's automatically a US citizen.

The 14th amendment didn't mean that for it's first 96 years...but then a liberal came along (you know the rest).

The Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

And thats usually bad news for the American public

 

[presonorek]

Interpretation:

The United States House and the United States Senate cannot make a law respecting an establishment of religion. The United States House and the United States Senate cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The United States House and the United States Senate cannot make a law limiting the freedom to say things. The United States House and the United States Senate cannot make a law limiting the freedom of the press to say things. The United States House and the United States Senate cannot make laws that prevent people from gathering together to let the government know about their dissatisfaction.

Commentary:

As written I don't see anything that guarantees us a right to free speech, freedom of religion, or the freedom of the press. It is just that the federal government cannot make laws about it.

Reinterpretation: None at this time.

Misinterpretation: None at this time.