|
mojo:
some questions for you:
just for the record, are you really the strict constructionist that you appear to be when you write about legal questions?
would you mind please laying out the basis for this position--why you hold it, not the basis for the position as such.
are you studying law or studying to study law? (no need to answer this one if it seems to directly personal--i ask because you are qucik to cite cases but once you start developing your line on them, your reasoning becomes--to me at least--unclear in terms of what holds the steps together. i assume this follows from differing frames of reference on these questions)
like filtherton--hell, like most folk who work outside the strict constuctionist framework--what the courts did in the case of roe v wade was interpretation in light of existing precedent and constitutional standards--that you might not like the outcome does not make it other than it is.
to link things at another level, this why i asked about your general position first rather than move straight into this particular possible debate: the semantic debate about what constitutes interpretation and what legislation and where the boundary lay seems to me fruitless insofar as it would be simply a way to draw lines based on positions not outlined. so maybe this way, starting with the general position, would be easier.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|