gungadin09
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
|
Yes, i was talking about the 1st Amendment.
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The fact is, it clearly says NO LAW may be passed that ABRIDGES freedom of speech or religion, and the Supreme Court is interpreting those words VERY broadly when they rule that that means any number of abridgments on the freedom of speech or religion are okay, because the court considers those to be reasonable abridgements. The law does NOT say, no law may be passed that UNREASONABLY abridges the freedom of speech, it says no law may be passed that abridges it (period). The question is, whether the Court has the authority to change the law that much, since, technically, it is not their place to rule on the reasonableness or practicallity of laws, but rather their legality. Is that what the Constitution means, or isn't it, is what they are supposed to be ruling on. And in this case, the wording is written in such absolute terms that it leaves little room for interpretation.
It would be illegal for the Supreme Court to interpret other laws that broadly. For example, they can't interpret the 15th Amendment:
quote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
... they can't look at that and say, well, it SAYS the right to vote MAY NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED because of race, but, actually, there are there these certain abridgements due to race that we will place, because we think they are reasonable. The Supreme Court would be subverting the law if they interpreted it like THAT, right? "May not be denied or abridged because of race" MEANS "may not be denied or abridged because of race". It does NOT mean, may be somewhat denied or abridged because of race.
Nor could the courts have taken this law:
quote:
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes, is hereby prohibited.
... they couldn't have looked at that and said, well, it SAYS alcoholic beverages are prohibited, but actually we're going to make an exception for THESE alcoholic beverages, or for THESE parts of the United States, because we reckon that that's reasonable. It would have been illegal for the courts to interpret the law like that, because the law is clear and does not allow for that interpretation.
i believe the same is true for the 1st Amendment. It's exact wording does not allow for the interpretation the courts are giving it. They are not "interpreting" the law, they are changing the law, essentially legislating from the bench.
pam
< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 9/29/2011 12:15:21 PM >
|
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread