Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
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.
|
In the way I understand the definition of constructionist RB, I would probably have to say that yes I am one. As for why I hold the position, I couldn't really tell you, I contend that the law is open to interpretation, as such I would obviously try and use it to my favor in debate over legal questions. Right now in school I am a Poli Sci major and experimenting with a law enforcement minor, we'll see how it all pans out. At this point in time, ideally I would like to get a graduate degree in Poli Sci, then law school, we'll see if reality allows any of that.
RAgeAngel19:
Thomas Jefferson did write a letter to the Danbury baptists with mention of separation. However it is contended he did such as a means of quoting a famous Baptist preacher from the 17th century Roger Williams who was the first to mention separation, but only in the sense that it was one sided, this was due to rememberence of the Anglican Church in England as being established as the state religion. The Danbury baptists wrote the original letter to congress in fear of having heard rumours that the gov. was going to establish a national religion. The idea wasn't freedom from religion, it was reasonably freedom of Religion.
As for the Treaty of Tripoli which might have some bearing into this, the original treaty's 11th article did state that the country was in no way founded as a christian nation. There are however different things to factor in, the treaty was sent to muslim pirates from early Libya, the Arabic version is said to not have even had the 11th article in it, and after going back to war with the pirates and redrafting the second treaty the 11th article had been dropped and re-signed without it.