|
There doesn't have to be an agreement on the criteria, I say there is no room for agreement as it is plainly defined. Law that comes about as a means of judicial implementation is activism, and is unconstitutional.
You can say it has been floated around by the "right", it's true, but it is based off the notion that the "left" and their beloved notion of "will of the people" goes out the window when it comes to issues such as homosexual marriage, abortion, and the phantom constitutional construct of separation of church and State. It's really amusing how the will of the people doesn't so much matter in these cases and the only means of forcing the lefts agenda has been at the behest of the courts and not the legislature as laid out by the constitution.
What is so absurd to you about the notion of constructionism and original intent? Is that really more laughable of modern justices and jurors pointing to foreign law tas a means of constitutional relevance when it is predated by hundreds of years?
Maybe I'm offbase here, I've never had much luck in regards to reading your posts or deciphering/getting information from them, but it seems clear to me that the notion of strict constructionism as a means of curbing judicial activism is independent, it is all simple really, and it has nothing to do with political lines as you try and make; if the courts decision leaves the grounds of interpretation, and is a means of implementation that it is activism and is unconstitutional.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
|