GhostWriter16
Deity
Tricky. I'm not 100% sure of the things that went into it, but I'd think the right to use the things you pay taxes for (Public schools) would fit under ninth amendment rights. That being said, I'm not certain.
The Art of Constitutional Interpretation
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
Tricky. I'm not 100% sure of the things that went into it, but I'd think the right to use the things you pay taxes for (Public schools) would fit under ninth amendment rights. That being said, I'm not certain.
This is indeed a check on the power of the judiciary, but such an amendment would have to be passed for every contentious issue that court rules upon by specifying the intended meaning more clearly.
It was decided under the 14th Amendment, not the 9th. Interesting that you would cite the 9th as that was used in a concurrence in Griswold.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Its a pretty laughable check actually. The whole point of the constitution is to protect minorities. The only reason it can be amended at all is because certain things are going to be completely obsolete. The reason its so hard to get an amendment is so that it better darn right be obsolote and not merely because of your political preferences. This is part of why I laugh at all the people who want a gay marriage amendment, whether favoring OR oppose. It just cheapens the whole process.
So basically, the court can do whatever they want, unless 3/4ths of the state legislatures disagree with them. That's ridiculous. Especially when the courts invented the power for themselves in the first place.
Exactly my point.
GhostWriter16
Deity
The 14th might actaully work, I'd have to look at it again though.
Citing Griswold is pretty whacked because the two cases have little to do with each other. The statement that "There are rights other than the ones listed here" is obviously an extremely vague one, and unlike the specifically named rights, where precedent literally doesn't matter, the ninth is practically begging for court interpretation.
My main problem with Griswold is its links with Roe v Wade. I don't see anything intristically illogical about a right to privacy, and would even consider it an extrapolation of search and seizure. To be honest, I don't know why that would inherently overturn a contraceptives ban anymore than it has anything to do with killing your children behind the privacy of your own home or any other crazy thing you could come up with. That said, I don't agree with a ban on contraceptives anyway, simply because it makes no sense. "Uncommonly silly, but constitutional" as one judge said, might have been the correct ruling.
Roe v Wade, on the other hand, is totally absurd. Right after I mention it having nothing more to do with the right to privacy than "Killing your children behind the walls of your own home," Roe v Wade does the same, somehow arguing that "Right to privacy" is a right to terminate a living organism, which whether it actually has human rights or not, is incredibly tortured logic.
I personally think that it should be easier (though not too easy) to change the us constutution.
Also, the courts did not invent this power. They mearly codified the established norm inherrited from the british.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I disagree, in fact I think the first ten amendments should be codified and completely unchangeable.
"Established norm" makes no difference when relating to the Constitution. The tenth amendment would clearly restrict such an implied power.
And I think the 2nd ammendment should be repealed.
A well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, and arms ownership is not a fundamental right.
My point is it wasn't a conspiracy or purely self interest motivated power grab.
So do you think that unlisted rights should be given any credence?
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
But you realize this effectively prevents the Constitution from ever protecting the rights of "newly observed" minorities? The vast majority of the population is prevented from enacting progressive legislation (whatever it might be), by vast numbers of rural and comparatively unpopulated states. Certainly that situation did not exist at the time of the Convention.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I don't necessarily see this as a problem. The US has always been a sectional country.
I don't want to see the few, but populous liberal states enforcing their ideology on the rest of the country.
Then again, I believe strongly in localism anyways. I think my state (New York) has ridiculous policies, so I think they can damn themselves with those policies, but I don't want those policies enforced on other parts of the country.
And I think every minority that "Deserves recognition" has pretty much been recognized, implicitly or explicitly, at this point. What more do we need? The incestuous? Special protections for Scientologists? Or people who just really don't like to be criticized? (See the whole Chick Fila thing.)
Sorry, but rights are rights and "Recognizing them" doesn't make them exist. Either they exist, given by God, or they mean nothing.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
And that tends to take you to truly terrible places.
And there's merit to this. Certainly I don't think that the populous states should be able to vote away the various privileges of smaller states, like the EC. But it seems patently absurd to me that the right to discriminate is should be one reserved to states.
Scientologists deserve the same protections as all other religious groups. Atheists as non-religious groups certainly deserve the same protections. Really I don't see how you can recognize, say, Jews as a minority with rights, but not the LGBT crowd.
And I'd vehemently disagree with you - not least because God doesn't exist. Rights are just privileges we see other as having. They're entirely a social construct.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
That is very Traditionalist.
Edit: I wonder if there were any historical arguments of literal interpretation during the first 20 years of the nation.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Just in general, and ignoring the particulars, I think the bigger a government is (In terms of area governed) the smaller it should be (In terms of responsibilites.) Otherwise you risk letting a distant majority govern a local minority.
Define "Discrimination." There's a limit sure, heck, I think national soveregnty has its limits. The only argument against stopping all the awful things that are going on in North Korea are that it wouldn't be worth the lives lost or the cost to rebuild. But anyone that argues that the NK government has a "Right" to treat its people that way is crazy.
But I don't think gay marriage is so much an issue of discrimination as it is an issue of what the definition of marriage is in the first place. If the government is going to back any definition at all, I'm going to support one that I can agree with.
My point with Scientologists is that the first amendment already covers them.
As for gays, I agree that they have rights, however, I disagree that there are any special rights that apply specifically to homosexuals (Meaning, they don't apply to anyone else, and thus wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights.) My point, however, wasn't even that. My point wasn't that we can't add any new rights to the constitution so much as I don't even want it to be possible to take any of the ones we have away. I think most people would agree with all of them staying with the exception of the second, which a lot of liberals would like to see go away. I'm COMPLETELY opposed.
So what about the right to self defense?
It obviously makes sense to interpret a Constitution strictly. The thing is that using contemporary standards to inform such an interpretation can be just as 'strict' as looking at the founding intention. The poll seems to automatically assimilate strict/founding intention and loose/living document, when it would be quite easy to have a loose interpretation of founding intention and a strict interpretation taking account of contemporary standards. I think I like the approach that has been taken over the last 25 years or so, to broaden the scope of protections offered and perhaps move away from being so literal. It doesn't compromise the integrity of the Constitution to recognise that although the authors of the Constitution didn't necessarily want women to vote, such a right could no longer be taken away.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
A constitution in my opinion should be interpreted strictly, to the letter and as literally as possible for any given instance. There is no point to writing a constitution if your just going to ignore it when the circumstances suit whatever body has power at any given instance.
Then, if it becomes evident to the majority that something in the constitution needs to change, have a referendum and insert whatever it is into the constitution, or otherwise alter the necessary clause. This methodology ensures that any changes to a constitution are not imposed by a minority, thus minimising the risks of ideological imposition, and loss of freedoms that come with both a laissez faire liberal and loose interpretation of the constitution and a methodology that gives amendment power solely to the sitting government.
Then, if it becomes evident to the majority that something in the constitution needs to change, have a referendum and insert whatever it is into the constitution, or otherwise alter the necessary clause. This methodology ensures that any changes to a constitution are not imposed by a minority, thus minimising the risks of ideological imposition, and loss of freedoms that come with both a laissez faire liberal and loose interpretation of the constitution and a methodology that gives amendment power solely to the sitting government.
There's a difference between not interpreting literally and ignoring what is written. The same goes for the interpretation of any piece of legislation (which the Constitution, at least until 1986, was; that the nature of the Constitution itself changed is probably a good indication that the interpretation of it could do with changing too). It's actual meaning may be best ascertained through the admittance of relevant extrinsic material. s 41 is a good example. Reading it literally, what would you think it means?
