Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Constitution describes a framework, not a user manual. That is the primary job of the Supreme Court. That branch of government wasn't created to just read the US Constitution.
That's a good way to put it - what I've been trying to say, probably inarticulately, all day.
what's your idea of an alternative to the constitution?
The recent action of President Obama declaring the Congress recessed when neither house had agreed that they would go on recess. The Constitution says that neither can recess for more than 3 days unless the other agrees and that didn't happen.
The one (and only) interpretation that counts is that of the Supreme Court. And, while it is certainly possible - humans being fallible - for the Supreme Court to err in its judgment, it must be recognized that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions, whether you consider them good or bad, are binding as law until overturned by the court or by constitutional amendment. As Mr. Justice Jackson put it: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, Concurring Opinion in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).
The problem is that the SCOTUS does not have constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution.
It makes no sense to run the country on a subjective or "living" document.
Exactly. Fluid subjective interpretations are exactly how fascist dictators come about. A "living" document means what they say it means, and all that.
Oh really? If it wasn't meant to change with the times we'd still have slavery, the president would be chosen by state legislatures, women wouldn't have suffrage, 18 year olds wouldn't be able to vote, etc., etc.
Hmmmmmm. All of your suggestions came from amendments. Yes the Founders did leave room for changes as they became needed. I didn't know that the original document provided for that method of electing the President. That would be because the document provided for the electoral college system we still use.
I guess you don't really understand what we of the strict construction believers say about so many liberal loose constructionist judges, do you?
This is why this country is great, people commun. with each other. I agree that it should be a flexable doc. as the founders did't know how the country has grown and changed in size and demographics.
The Constitution is not subject to "interpretation". It says what it says in PLAIN ENGLISH to be understood by everyone. Only liberals think outside the box and add unwritten passages.
What you say is the main reason we must not allow the Supreme Court membership to get beyond the number of liberal thinkers it now is. Too many of our 5-4 rulings would be 4-5 if they get another liberal and lose a conservative or the independent.
But it IS a Living Document, hence the Ammendments
That's exactly the POINT of Amendments. The Constitution is open to Amendment via a very specific process, but NOT open to different interpretations based on whichever way the wind happens to be blowing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
