RE: Forgot to change name!
July 17, 2018 at 11:31 am
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2018 at 11:40 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(July 17, 2018 at 8:56 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: In your expert opinion as a constitutional lawyer?
Not mine...
“The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments…It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” – Federalist Paper 78 (my emphasis)
(July 17, 2018 at 9:58 am)Aegon Wrote: It's law. If there was no "correct" way to interpret legal text aside from plain, literal reading then about 50% of lawyers in every practice should be out of a job. It's always interpretive. The Constitution should be no different.
That is only the case when the legislators write unclear laws. Nothing in the constitution is unclear.
(July 17, 2018 at 9:58 am)Aegon Wrote: I'd also argue that the document is old and based on an INCREDIBLY different society. Itd be rather asinine not to keep it up with the times and the way we've progressed. ...The document was written at a time where the only firearms people had access to were muskets and black people were enslaved. It changes a lot. Not taking it literally is a valid method of analyzing the document.
Irrelevant. The Constitution provides for the means to adapt to future circumstances: the amendment process. Not contorting the language to mean what it did not mean when it was written and as amended.
<insert profound quote here>
