Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
I know this is futile of me, but I have to at least make the attempt.
There are several schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They all have their advantages and disadvantages; their proponents and opponents. None is more "legitimate" than any other.
It is natural for people to prefer schools that agree with their opinions, but that does not make any particular school more or less legitimate.
If there were only one way to interpret the Constitution, we would not need a panel of judges.
It should be noted that even among Conservatives there are differing opinion on which school's method is appropriate. Just like there are differing opinions among Liberals. And of course us Moderates frequently disagree with either side's opinions.  |
Not futile of you. I do appreciate other views, believe it or not lol.
Well the thing is, "schools of thought" such as the living constitution theory was conjured up to help progressives legitimize their policies and withstand judicial review. because let us be honest here, they won't survive most of the time if in front of an honest Judge/Justice reading constitution as it is.One reason FDR threatened the court and tried his court packing plan was they kept following the constitution and ruling against his "New Deal" schemes, err policies.Only after they felt threatened, did they began to rule in favor. Any theory or "interpretation" that justifies legislating from the bench, is illegitimate. Only legitimate way to change the constitution is the amendment process.
Antonin Scalia has one of my heroes and given his passing, some favorite quotes.
"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things."
"On this day, when we’re celebrating our constitutional heritage, I urge you to be faithful to that heritage – to impose on our fellow citizens only the restrictions that are there in the Constitution, not invent new ones, not to invent the right because it’s a good idea."
Yes originalism is the only legitimate ways to interpret the constitution, I stand by that but appreciate what you said.Why do I say that? Simply saying abide by the document as it is, not what wish it would be. Even when/if my view on an issue conflicts , must go with the constitution.Don't like it? Push for an amendment. That is how it was intended to be. A great quote from Scalia "
“A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.”
Argument I have with left wingers all the time about Citizens United.While I dislike the real world consequences of the decision when it comes to campaign finance, the decision is constitutionally correct. The court actually did it's job and protected the first amendment. Again, I hate the real world consequences, but that is not their job to consider.