Best way I have heard it described to me, the Constitution is a contract between the government and the people. No judge would treat a business contract dispute like some judges treat the Constitution.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Navy Reserve COVID Vaccinations by October
- Thread starter snake020
- Start date
If it was that cut and dried, we wouldn’t need a federal judiciary to interpret it. ?
Agree.
Interpretation: the action of explaining the meaning of something. I am OK with that.
Fiction: a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so. Not so much this.
If the Constitution does not say what you want it to, fine. Not the end of the world. Lobby your legislature. The notion that the Constitution must address every dispute in society is not the original intent.
The constitution is monumentally vague.
I know opinions differ on this, but the fact that we have a SCOTUS, who is the ultimate arbiter of all things constitutional, means you’re going to have courts with varying degrees of flexibility on the issues they rule on, depending on the collective judicial philosophies of the members over time. That may not align with your philosophy, but I believe that was the framer’s intent.
From what I’ve observed, people label rulings they disagree with as “judicial activism,” and I don’t put much credence in that, regardless of which side of the aisle is doing the whining. These are almost always lay people.
Really? Monumentally?
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
That seems very clear.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Crystal clear.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Perfectly clear.
Sure, the Federal Courts have a necessary role interpreting the Constitution. But often it is when parties are nibbling around the edge trying to expand current interpretations to prevail for a client. They are looking for an expansion of the law. But in the end, that Constitution isn't so vague that every dispute that hard to adjudicate. Now days nearly 40% of SCOTUS decisions at 9-0. Just 5 years ago that was at 57%. Lately, less than 15% of decisions are the ideological 5-4, 6-3. All the rest are decided with votes crossing party and jurisprudence ideologies. The Constitution simply is not that vague. Some of us think it more cut and dried than others, but the history of Supreme Court cases given cert and the resulting votes would not suggest it is super vague.
Absolutely agree. My team is always right
.Just a reminder, because I am sure you know this, the Constitution did not give the Federal Courts judicial review. That was not their job until Marbury where the Supreme Court gave themselves that power. Hard to imagine what our jurisprudence would look like today without judicial review, but it clearly was not why the founders gave us the Supreme Court.
I think it is a useful hypothetical to ask if this amendment wasn't ratified, would slavery still be illegal? Do we need to rely on this amendment to ensure its illegality or do we just acknowledge that slavery is inhuman and does not respect the rights of individuals.
Well, those are easy.
Google on the "Necessary and Proper Clause" for vagueness. The Commerce Clause too. Also the General Welfare Clause. What these mean has a been a long Ouija Board exercise, especially when they get extended to health care, the internet, nuke weapons, and all manners of things the framers did not anticipate.
So here's a question...should the Constitution be interpreted with regards to what the framers intended? Or in regards to what the ratifiers understood it to mean? Those aren't necessarily the same thing. Think about it. Each state had to ratify it (I think 11 did?)
The Constitution says the Veep will be the President of the Senate, which implies the Veep will preside over Senate meetings, which is not at all what happens. How'd they sneak through that gaping hole?
I'm not dinging the Constitution, it's the best on the planet ever. But there are lots of questions about things now that the legislative branches have not spoken on, but that need to be decided by someone. Those decisions trace up to SCOTUS, who by requirement must trace their rulings back to the Constitution, no matter how tenuous the connection. That's just the way it is.
No it doesn't. It may, but that is not "the way it is." The people decide. Voters. If a state legislature has been vague, they should be given a chance to correct that. And frequently the Court demands that. If a legislature has not spoken on a subject, it may be for good reason and for the people to correct if not. Obviously, the only requirement that the Supreme Court look to the Constitution is IF the dispute is before them. They do not have to take a case. In fact they find only about 3% of the cases brought to them is worth hearing. It is very sad that in a representative republic, we got to the point that some of the most important decisions in our society was decided by just 9 people based on the arguments of a select few.
It did? The Veep IS the president f the senate. The duty is simply delegated by Senate rules to other members for most proceedings . The House does the same thing for the Speaker. Veep or Speaker can take the gavel and exert their Constitutional power when ever they want.
Fair question that has gotten plenty of debate among academics. I don't think anyone knows what individual state legislators were thinking when they voted yes. You certainly can not know what a body of legislators thought and that is who ratified the Constitution. A body of representatives with many minds and reasons for ratifying. . But we do know the precise words in the Constitution and what they meant in that time. We also have a great deal of archival material as to what they members of the Constitutional Convention were thinking as they debated and wrote to colleagues and back to their states. You do not need to read the minds of a framer or ratifying representative. If clear intent can not be divined by words on the record, then let the people decide what they want. Maybe that was the original intent by the framers, to be silent and let the people reign.
Why doesn’t the Veep preside? It’s what the Constitution intends. How’d we get this new interpretation?
I think we are in agreement.
Not from the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not require the VP to preside. It gives him the title. Rules of the Senate define the actual duties or authority of the Senate President whether the VP pro tem.
Come on man. Use the right title. You know the president of the senate is a woman.
T
Thought you were joking untill I saw the dislike above. The discussion was not about the current VP. Although I suppose I could have used zie or zim. ? Can't imagine why this got under your bonnet. A rebuke for threadjack, sure. Did you really find it disrespectful?
So you believe that the framers spent months in heated debate over exactly how to frame the constitution, arguing very specific points and to defend very specific principles/actions, but ultimately decided that none of those points should matter to future govt bodies and they should be able to "interpret" away the very constructs they created? And then they didn't mention this extremely important intention anywhere? Can you find any writings of a framer who said the constitution should be a living document with meanings that change over time? Seems like if that's what they intended then it would be clear.
Here's an interesting article where Justice Scalia describes this far better than I can: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/constitutional-interpretation