Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
there is only a contradiction when someone thinks that 'interpret' is defined as 'what did the lawmakers or founder REALLY mean when they wrote that.' Otherwise, it's reading the plain wording of the law and applying it to that end.
Again, why is it so damn hard to read what was written, the plain word, and NOT have to 'interpret' what the hell the words 'really' mean?
|
Because the 'plain word' isn't always so plain? The Constitution didn't come with a reference guide to explain away questions for all time. How does e-commerce square with the concept of interstate commerce? Does the absence of words in the Constitution mean something? When the Second Amendment declares a right to bare arms, does the lack of an 'any' or 'all' mean that the right can be abridged just not eliminated or is it more fundamental? In the real world these are questions that need to be addressed. Article III creates the one supreme court for a reason. If all the founder's had intended was for the 'plain' wording of the Constitution to be self-evident then we wouldn't need a supreme court most of us can read the wording of the Constitution just as well as any justice.
Furthermore, your 'plain word' approach to Constitutional law completely overlooks the concepts of judicial review and stare decisis. You're the one who brought up Marbury v. Madison which set forth that, "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.". Even if you want to argue the Marbury was wrongly decided (and you may have a point), that is irrelevant in the face of over 200 years case law built off of this premise. Moreover, the decision has never been countered by Congress in the last two centuries either. Though the Constitution is silent in this regard, it is silent in many regards so either a) we look to intent and by looking to the Federalist Papers we can see the desire for judicial review or b) we 'plain word' it and there is no Constitutional right, but instead the right was taken by the Court and Congress has tacitly made it law by allowing it. Either way it is and has been since Marbury and thus the Court's job is literally to interpret the Constitution.
Finally, on a purely pragmatic note, as others have pointed out we don't live in 1772. In fact, we are not even the same government we were then. We live in an executive centric system, have a national economy based upon IT and services, and we serve as the hegemon in a geopolitical 'sea of anarchy'. None of these realities were desired or even intended by the founders. However, our ancestors chose to take this country in a different direction and we cannot 'unring the bell'. This system of judicial power is completely ingrained into our government. You can't realistically extricate it without upheaving our entire government.