x Twilight x
New member
Should it be applied with no interpretation or should judges try to interpret what the intent of the law was when it was written?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do you believe the Constitution should be interpreted word for word?
- Thread starter x Twilight x
- Start date
Anne Boylen
New member
OK, I was going to wait until more people voted, but I feel like responding today. Someone has already voted that the Constitution should be applied literally, with no interpretation. Here is what such a government would be like.
First I'll cover the bill of rights, then I'll go on to other sections
amendment I: 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
So there should be no law mentioning religion ever and any exercising of any religion is legal. Of course this is just making laws. But since there are religions that require human sacrifice, Congress can't pass a law outlawing killing because that would be respecting an establishment of religion. Also they may not abridge the freedom of the press, not to write and distribute publications, but any right. The right of the press to drop bombs on the white house is intact because Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. People are allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, lie under oath, yell profanity whenever they feel like including under oath.
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
The first clause is just a statement, nothing about law, so the people may have as many weapons as they want, including felons, those currently in jail, and any citizen. The weapons include atomic bombs, SAM's and tanks.
Amendment III: this is correctly literally interpreted today
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People get to be secure in their persons and houses. The warrants issue is a separate clause so it doesn't have to do with searches and seizures. People may elect to not allow someone with a warrant in their house because otherwise they would not be secure in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Amendment V: pretty much followed, but there would have to be due process of law every time taxes were collected for everyone.
The next few amendments leave no choice but an interpretation. Amendment VI talks of a speedy trial, how do they define speedy? Amendment VII talks of excessive bail and excessive fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. How are those applied without interpretation?
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
thus NCLB was illegal, because no where does the Constitution mention education. Marriage is reserved to the states, because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. I will mention a few others later
Article 1, section 8
Wow, this is a big one. It lists the powers of Congress. All other powers unless given to one of the other 2 branches are all reserved to the states. Gun control is illegal once again on top of the 2nd amendment because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. So as long as the guns are sold inside a state, the federal government has no jurisdiction. On top of that the FDA, FCC, many other federal organizations are illegal because although they may regulate the buying and selling of drugs between states, they may not regulate use or possession or selling within the states.
There are many other holes, and many places where one must interpret what is excessive, what is cruel, what is reasonable. The Constitution should not and can not be literally interpreted word for word.
First I'll cover the bill of rights, then I'll go on to other sections
amendment I: 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
So there should be no law mentioning religion ever and any exercising of any religion is legal. Of course this is just making laws. But since there are religions that require human sacrifice, Congress can't pass a law outlawing killing because that would be respecting an establishment of religion. Also they may not abridge the freedom of the press, not to write and distribute publications, but any right. The right of the press to drop bombs on the white house is intact because Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. People are allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, lie under oath, yell profanity whenever they feel like including under oath.
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
The first clause is just a statement, nothing about law, so the people may have as many weapons as they want, including felons, those currently in jail, and any citizen. The weapons include atomic bombs, SAM's and tanks.
Amendment III: this is correctly literally interpreted today
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People get to be secure in their persons and houses. The warrants issue is a separate clause so it doesn't have to do with searches and seizures. People may elect to not allow someone with a warrant in their house because otherwise they would not be secure in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Amendment V: pretty much followed, but there would have to be due process of law every time taxes were collected for everyone.
The next few amendments leave no choice but an interpretation. Amendment VI talks of a speedy trial, how do they define speedy? Amendment VII talks of excessive bail and excessive fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. How are those applied without interpretation?
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
thus NCLB was illegal, because no where does the Constitution mention education. Marriage is reserved to the states, because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. I will mention a few others later
Article 1, section 8
Wow, this is a big one. It lists the powers of Congress. All other powers unless given to one of the other 2 branches are all reserved to the states. Gun control is illegal once again on top of the 2nd amendment because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. So as long as the guns are sold inside a state, the federal government has no jurisdiction. On top of that the FDA, FCC, many other federal organizations are illegal because although they may regulate the buying and selling of drugs between states, they may not regulate use or possession or selling within the states.
There are many other holes, and many places where one must interpret what is excessive, what is cruel, what is reasonable. The Constitution should not and can not be literally interpreted word for word.
Telemachus R
New member
The Constitution is and must always be a fluid document. As times change and society advances, it neeRAB to adapt to reflect these changes. We cannot apply a 230 year old document word for word with the original intent without addressing the changes that have taken place in the last 230 years. We need to maintain the ideals of the original intent to the highest level possible, while being sensative to the possibility that some of the original language and ideals may no longer be appropriate to our society.
roxbubbagum
New member
If you are unwilling to change the constitution itself to a changed world, you'll have to interpret it to keep up. Same all over the world, really...
Even a "word for word" interpretation is still an interpretation. If we say that the constitution should be interpreted "literally", I suppose what we mean is we should try to adopt the world view of the gentlemen-philosophers who created it. But, as snakespit suggests, unless the document can be understood as a flexible political arrangement that can be adapted to social change, it would require a succession of numerous amendments to keep it up to date.
The French have managed to wear out 4 republics since 1792: the present one (the fifth) dates from 1958 and there has been some talk of it being no longer "relevant" to modern France. I can't imagine the United States ever taking such a flippant attitude towarRAB its constitution !
The French have managed to wear out 4 republics since 1792: the present one (the fifth) dates from 1958 and there has been some talk of it being no longer "relevant" to modern France. I can't imagine the United States ever taking such a flippant attitude towarRAB its constitution !
Stripes and Dots
New member
oddly enough, we have a thing in the consitution to do this...its called amending.
In the worRAB of Justice Scalia...The constitution should be interpreted "reasonably".
What does this mean? Well the amendments of the constitution and the orginal document itself were adopted by the people to serve a purpose and meant what it meant when adopted by the people. If a judge decides to change this then this would be a form of creating legislation. Take the domain case a few months ago. This is found in the fifth amendment as stated: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
Does this change over 230 years? Well if it does then who adopted it? Who changed it and under what authority? It means what it meant when adopted, which is that public use means roaRAB, streets, schools and other government uses of that nature...not to resell. The 14th amendment was to say that everyone is equal...thats it, nothing about abortion or anything. How could you get "subsantive due process" from the 14th amendement? Only a judge could and has. This was never adopted, it was made by an unelected life term judge. Democracy? I think not.
So my vote is 'no'..not word for word, but reasonably.
In the worRAB of Justice Scalia...The constitution should be interpreted "reasonably".
What does this mean? Well the amendments of the constitution and the orginal document itself were adopted by the people to serve a purpose and meant what it meant when adopted by the people. If a judge decides to change this then this would be a form of creating legislation. Take the domain case a few months ago. This is found in the fifth amendment as stated: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
Does this change over 230 years? Well if it does then who adopted it? Who changed it and under what authority? It means what it meant when adopted, which is that public use means roaRAB, streets, schools and other government uses of that nature...not to resell. The 14th amendment was to say that everyone is equal...thats it, nothing about abortion or anything. How could you get "subsantive due process" from the 14th amendement? Only a judge could and has. This was never adopted, it was made by an unelected life term judge. Democracy? I think not.
So my vote is 'no'..not word for word, but reasonably.
lulas~forever <3 STARZ
New member
If you really want to be technical with the domain case the Constitution says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". This says nothing about taking private property for private use. This particular clause is saying if "you take private property for public use", then "you must receive just compensation." This doesn't cover the if "private property is taken for private use". Just offering a little something for those who say the Constitution should be taken literally, there is no right protecting your private property from being taken for private use.
I agree mostly with Steeeve, and I understand he isn't advocating a strict word for word, but as of now there are 2 votes for yes. This is for them.
But Steeeve, you talk of how the judges are unelected officials, but in a way they are. They have to be nominated by an elected official, and they have to be confirmed by elected officials. They still have no power to create laws or change them though. Their job is to interpret the law, but they aren't supposed to be elected officials, that argument gets a little annoying.
I agree mostly with Steeeve, and I understand he isn't advocating a strict word for word, but as of now there are 2 votes for yes. This is for them.
But Steeeve, you talk of how the judges are unelected officials, but in a way they are. They have to be nominated by an elected official, and they have to be confirmed by elected officials. They still have no power to create laws or change them though. Their job is to interpret the law, but they aren't supposed to be elected officials, that argument gets a little annoying.