Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Except that they're no longer around to interpret their work directly, so in order to use their interpretations we have to rely on interpretations of their interpretations. Which just means that their writings get interpreted according to the ideological bent of the person doing the interpretation. Pigeonholing is pigeonholing, regardless of whether its being done by some ivory-tower prat or some overweight dude in camo with a hunting rifle in one hand and a can of bud light in the other (as long as we're using stereotypes).
|
This.
Constitutional law exists as a means to refer to the Constitution in matters of the nation. This practice is done among the people; you know, the living kind.
Law making, enacting, and enforcing is meant to be done under the authority of the Constitution. It is up to the people to determine whether this is being done accordingly. It's not up to ghosts.
---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
How about instead of interpreting their words, we just...I dunno...read the things? Take them at their words instead of trying to interpret all sorts of convenient, allegedly hidden meanings into them?
|
The problem with interpretations of the Constitution is that it's not always that well written. I've talked about this with some of the Amendments. I haven't read the whole Constitution, but it's my understanding that a number of problems arise with some of the diction and sentence structures. I suppose this is why it's so compelling to want to keep returning to the founders' intentions.