NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by a post that I saw on another thread.
Follow this link (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp) for the details. I've chosen a few of the more interesting ones for those that are too lazy to read the whole thing.
The Air Force
The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. It provides, specifically, for a navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. Though they were aware of lighter-than-air flying craft, the Framers could not have reasonably provided for an Air Force. It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an arm of the Navy, could be excepted; and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense - the Framers certainly did not intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second (and less desirable) way is historical - the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an arm of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship. Basically, unless your interpretation of the Constitution freezes it in 1789, the Air Force is a perfectly constitutional branch of the U.S. military.
The Electoral College.
The concept of the presidential elector is certainly in the Constitution, but never is the group of people collectively referred to as "The Electoral College." Article 1, Section 2 speaks of "Electors," as do several of the Amendments, but never the college itself. The term comes from common usage in the early 1800's, in the same way that the "College of Cardinals" elects a pope, and is based on the Latin word collegium, which simply refers to a body of people acting as a unit. The term "College of Electors" is used in U.S. law, at 3 USC 4. For more on the Electoral College, see the topic page.
Absolute Freedom of Speech or Religion.
The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners' wishes.
Freedom of Expression.
It is often said that one of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment is the freedom of expression. This site, in fact, uses that term in its quick description of the amendment: "Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression." But "expression" is not used in the amendment at all. This term has come to be used as a shorthand, a term of art, for three of the freedoms that are explicitly protected: speech, petition, and assembly. While the use of "freedom of expression" is ubiquitous in this area of 1st Amendment study, it is important to note exactly what "freedom of expression" refers to - let this be such a note.
God.
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
"It's a Free Country!"
A commonly heard mantra is, "Read your Constitution - it's a free country, you know!" Well, read your Constitution - it never says it is a free country. The implication of the aphorism is that in the United States, you can do whatever you want to do, and the Constitution is there to ensure that. It is certainly true that the Constitution protects many civil rights. The 1st Amendment ensures freedom of religious choice and freedom of speech, but those things are not without limit. You cannot create a religion that allows you to kill someone without civil punishment; you cannot use libelous or slanderous words without recourse. There are other things that restrict freedom - from the ability to suspend habeas corpus to the issuance of patents. Certainly the United States is a very free country, but it is not totally free - which is actually a good thing, unless you actually like anarchy.
Feel free to comment on any of the others you find in the link, or on these that I have posted above.
(Yes, even you foreigners. :))

And that just goes to show why judicial review and interpretation are so important to the US system. I'm pretty sure, based upon the fact that most of the authors of the Constitution were either lawyers or people familiar with the common law system that they fully intended for interpretation to be a critical component of the document necessary for it to stay current in the face of changing trends. Even during the 18th century, social change was occurring at a rapid pace, especially in the UK and the former colonies so they were by no means unfamiliar with the potential limitations that a much stricter Constitution would impose on the system.

Now, if we were a civil law system, things might have been quite a bit different. I also doubt the Constitution would be anywhere near as elegant, flexible, or as easily adapted to changing times, all of which have played a pivotal role in protecting our freedoms throughout the years.

And that just goes to show why judicial review and interpretation are so important to the US system.That isn't in the Constitution, either. :)
The first time that judicial review came about was in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

That isn't in the Constitution, either. :)
The first time that judicial review came about was in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803),

True, and there have been people that argue its legitimacy on that basis.

That being said, if that concept is a core component of the common law system, and if the common law system was used as the dominant legal system in all of the former colonies, it's sort of hard to argue that there was no precedent for that kind of action given that the legal system in place relied in part upon judicial review and interpretation and had done so for at least a good chunk of the previous millennium.

True, and there have been people that argue its legitimacy on that basis.

That being said, if that concept is a core component of the common law system, and if the common law system was used as the dominant legal system in all of the former colonies, it's sort of hard to argue that there was no precedent for that kind of action given that the legal system in place relied in part upon judicial review and interpretation and had done so for at least a good chunk of the previous millennium.Yes, I'm not arguing against it. Just to make sure that you know that.

That isn't in the Constitution, either. :)
The first time that judicial review came about was in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

There's a certain irony to this post.

There's a certain irony to this post.That judicial review was established by a case that was focused on the executive branch's appointment of justices of the peace and judges?

I must say I do love the catch all nature of the Ninth Amendment, especially when coupled with the 14th Amendment. It kind of blows any claim of "strict construction" right out of the water.

Was this inspired by that religon in the constitution post in the wtf real americans thread?

I must say I do love the catch all nature of the Ninth Amendment, especially when coupled with the 14th Amendment. It kind of blows any claim of "strict construction" right out of the water.I've always believed that the Constitution is a "living" document. Able to be modified as needed.

Was this inspired by that religion in the constitution post in the wtf real Americans thread?It was. I think it pointed to many Americans' perception of what the Constitution is, and what the Constitution really is.

Unfortuanetly the constitution has been bent and even broken before at various times. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delanore Roosevelt, and the current administration.

Every instance in times of war.

Surely what is of most importance when deciding to change something is not whether it originates in the Constitution but whether it works now and whether there is a better alternative. In most other places, whether something was in the original constitution or not wouldn't be of great political importance and would be interesting only as an academic exercise. I can't quite get my head round the level of esteem given to the constitution in the US, but that's just differences in political cultures I guess. Doesn't make sense unless you've been brought up with it, I suppose.

Unfortuanetly the constitution has been bent and even broken before at various times. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delanore Roosevelt, and the current administration.

Every instance in times of war.What did Abraham Lincoln do?

What did Abraham Lincoln do?

He suspended habeus corpus during the civil war.

He suspended habeus corpus during the civil war.Habeus Corpus can be suspended during times of national security crises.
Specifically:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Habeus Corpus can be suspended during times of national security crises.
Specifically:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

He also suspended freedom of speech.

Habeus Corpus can be suspended during times of national security crises.
Specifically:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
The problem is that this clause is discussing the powers of Congress. For the President to do it raised some serious constitutional concerns.

That isn't in the Constitution, either. :)
The first time that judicial review came about was in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

I'll get to some of the other "points" made by your source later, but I beg to differ. There is a difference between saying that the words "judicial review" don't occur in the Constitution and saying the concept isn't in the Constitution.

Please excuse the repetiveness below, but I've taken this from some prior posts of mine:

1. Judicial review is the very essence of the existence of the Supreme Court and is clearly provided for in our Constitution. See generally Article III (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/) and Article VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the U.S. Constitution. This is spelled out at length in Marbury v. Madison (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=5&invol=137), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) and, perhaps more importantly, in The Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm).

2. Where exactly in the Constitution is judicial review found?

Well, let's quickly note that Artice VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) tells us that: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Let us also note that Article I (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/) and Article II (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/) fail to give final power to interpret the Constitution to either the executive or legislative branch.

So, let's now turn to Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..."

I think it inherent in the idea of judicial power that the Court has the power to interpret law. As Justice Marshall declared in Marbury (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137), "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That this was intended by the Founders to be so read is confirmed by Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm): "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

One also can look to the overall scheme of the Constitution, particularly the setting up of checks and balances. The judicial power to interpret law is the judiciary's primary check on the other branches. Without it, the system of checks and balances fails.

Regardless, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we are informed: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ..."

Thus, any doubt that the Court has the power in both Law and Equity to rule on cases involving the meaning of the Constitution is removed. Such cases are emphatically within the judicial Power.

Finally, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we learn: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "

Thus, the judicial power includes the jurisdiction over both fact and law questions in cases arising under the Constitution. Again, the Court has the power to interpret law, including the Supreme Law of the Land.

3. Where did the concept of judicial review come from? Judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury. The concept had been long known. The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. Judicial review in the English common law originated at least as early as Dr. Bonham's Case (http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Dr%20Bonham's%20Case.htm) in 1610. Judicial review was utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters. In 1761 James Otis, in the Writs of Assistance Case (http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/writs.htm) in Boston, argued that British officers had no power under the law to use search warrants that did not stipulate the object of the search. Otis based his challenge to the underlying act of Parliament on Bonham's Case, the English Constitution, and the principle of “natural equity.” John Adams subsequently adopted this reasoning to defend the rights of Americans by appeal to a law superior to parliamentary enactment. And there were several instances known to the Founders of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions.

Practically all of the Founders who expressed an opinion on the issue in the Constitutional Convention appear to have assumed and welcomed the existence of court review of the constitutionality of legislation, and I have already noted the power of judicial review was explicity set forth in The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html). Similar statements affirming the power of judicial review were made by Founders duing the state ratifying conventions. In enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789 (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm), Congress explicitly made provision for the exercise of the power, and in other debates questions of constitutionality and of judicial review were prominent.

And, as I have also noted, in the 200 years since Marbury the power of judicial review has been accepted and further expounded. If it were truly a mere power-grab, it could have long ago been nullified. Objections to judicial review motivated by a dislike for a specific line of caselaw are both historically inaccurate and rather tedious. (In writing this brief overview of some of the history of judicial review, I've relied on numerous sources beyond the original sources linked above. I wouldn't claim to have known all of the above off the top of my head. :))

4. Is judicial review valid? Another case you might check out that confirms the Court's power of judicial review is the unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=358&invol=1), 358 U.S. 1 (1958):

As this case reaches us it raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our federal system of government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution. Specifically it involves actions by the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas upon the premise that they are not bound by our holding in Brown v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483. That holding was that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids States to use their governmental powers to bar children on racial grounds from attending schools where there is state participation through any arrangement, management, funds or property. We are urged to uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board of Education have been further challenged and tested in the courts. We reject these contentions.
. . .
However, we should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine.

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.



5. More on the history of judicial review. I've already established that judicial review was not a new idea and had existed under common law. Here is more from Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Court 1801-1835, 49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 646, 655-656 (1982):

The Privy Council had occasionally applied the ultra vires principle to set aside legislative acts contravening municipal and colonial charters. State courts had set aside state statutes under constitutions no more explicit about judicial review than the federal. The Supreme Court itself had measured a state law against a state constitution in Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 14 (1800), and had struck down another under the supremacy clause in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796); in both cases the power of judicial review was expressly affirmed. Even Acts of Congress had been struck down by federal circuit courts, and the Supreme Court had reviewed the constitutionality of a federal statute in Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796). Justice James Iredell had expressly asserted this power both in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), and in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), and [Justice] Chase had acknowledged it in Cooper. In the [Consitutional] Convention, moreover, both proponents and opponents fo the proposed Council of Revision had recognized that the courts would review the validity of congresssional legislation, and Alexander Hamilton had proclaimed the same doctrine in The Federalist.

6. Also, I'll note the following from A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 15-16 (1965):

[It] is as clear as such matters can be that the Framers of the Constitution specifically expected that the federal courts would assume a power -- of whatever exact dimensions --to pass on the constitutionality of actions of the Congress and the President, as well as of the several states. Moreover, not even a colorable showing of decisive historical evidence to the contrary can be made. Nor can it be maintained that the language of the Constitution is compelling the other way.


7. On the question of judicial vs. legislative supremacy, Hamilton explains in Federalist #78 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html):

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.



Again, the above is from several prior posts of mine on the subject. Feel free to show where I am wrong.

Habeus Corpus can be suspended during times of national security crises.
Specifically:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

See Ex parte Milligan (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=71&invol=2), 71 U.S. 2 (1866) (holding that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional and that martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating).

That judicial review was established by a case that was focused on the executive branch's appointment of justices of the peace and judges?
No. That supreme court decisions are constitutional law.
What did Abraham Lincoln do?

suspended habeus corpus for one.

Inspired by a post that I saw on another thread.
Follow this link (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp) for the details. I've chosen a few of the more interesting ones for those that are too lazy to read the whole thing.
*snip*

Feel free to comment on any of the others you find in the link, or on these that I have posted above.
(Yes, even you foreigners. :))

I don't have time to go through everyplace that this website is wrong. Mostly it argues "X isn't in the Constitution" because the Constitution doesn't literally say "X is in the Constitution."

The website is right about some things, however, such as "God" not being in the Constitution.

I don't have time to go through everyplace that this website is wrong. Mostly it argues "X isn't in the Constitution" because the Constitution doesn't literally say "X is in the Constitution."Hence the term "living" document. Things are added to it as needed.

Hence the term "living" document. Things are added to it as needed.

Not what I meant. There are concepts like the "presumption of innocence" that is not expressly stated in and of itself in the Constitution, but are contained within phrases in the Constitution like "due process of law."

Similarly, the 5th and 14th Amendments protect many fundamental rights that aren't literally spelled out in verbatim in the Constitution. Like the right to marry or the right to privacy. (The whole point of the 9th Amendment is that there are fundamental rights not expressly listed in the Constitution.)

You're reminding me of a Saturday Night Live skit, after a Supreme Court nominee got into trouble over pot-smoking in his college days:
"So, like, Professor Ginsburg, you're saying the Constitution was... always there? And Madison just, kind of, FOUND it? That's heavy, man..."

Not what I meant. There are concepts like the "presumption of innocence" that is not expressly stated in and of itself in the Constitution, but are contained within phrases in the Constitution like "due process of law."

Similarly, the 5th and 14th Amendments protect many fundamental rights that aren't literally spelled out in verbatim in the Constitution. Like the right to marry or the right to privacy. (The whole point of the 9th Amendment is that there are fundamental rights not expressly listed in the Constitution.)Of course. I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't think we're understanding each other. :(

Of course. I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't think we're understanding each other. :(

I don't see how I am being unclear. Are you saying you agree that much of what the OP website says is untrue and/or misleading because it applies a silly literalism to the Constitution?

'Cuz otherwise you ARE disagreeing with me. :wink:

I don't see how I am being unclear. Are you saying you agree that much of what the OP website says is untrue and/or misleading because it applies a silly literalism to the Constitution?

'Cuz otherwise you ARE disagreeing with me. :wink:I'm not serious about it, my friend. :)
Notice the term "silly". :D

I'm not serious about it, my friend. :)
Notice the term "silly". :D

So the OP and your subsequent posts were all joking?

I guess I need to work on my sense of humor as I didn't find it funny.

I don't have time to go through everyplace that this website is wrong. Mostly it argues "X isn't in the Constitution" because the Constitution doesn't literally say "X is in the Constitution."

The website is right about some things, however, such as "God" not being in the Constitution.

I am so tired of you misleading people.

The canons of construction require that only the most stringent literalism be applied in legal interpretation, even though that would preclude any meaningful act of interpretation.

What you are advocating is some sort of continuing intellectual struggle to acknowledge things like policy, intent, context, practical results, and any number of other nuanced yet powerful influences on the crafting of law. It would be mean discussion, deliberation, and ongoing debate that will be as unending as the human experience itself, and the only reward would be the chance, the merest hope, to refine ourselves and our pursuit of justice.

What would be the point of all that?

EDIT: I am presently listening to a lecture by a Law Professor, and he's wasting our time with a lengthy discussion of consideration and its background in the laws of countries I've never heard of, like Ing Lund, and Fritz or Franz or some bullshit. Guy can't just give us the code and leave us alone, wants us to have some kind of "frame of reference". Loves the sounds of his own voice, just like you, Cat.

I am so tired of you misleading people.

The canons of construction require that only the most stringent literalism be applied in legal interpretation, even though that would preclude any meaningful act of interpretation.

What you are advocating is some sort of continuing intellectual struggle to acknowledge things like policy, intent, context, practical results, and any number of other nuanced yet powerful influences on the crafting of law. It would be mean discussion, deliberation, and ongoing debate that will be as unending as the human experience itself, and the only reward would be the chance, the merest hope, to refine ourselves and our pursuit of justice.

What would be the point of all that?

EDIT: I am presently listening to a lecture by a Law Professor, and he's wasting our time with a lengthy discussion of consideration and its background in the laws of countries I've never heard of, like Ing Lund, and Fritz or Franz or some bullshit. Guy can't just give us the code and leave us alone, wants us to have some kind of "frame of reference". Loves the sounds of his own voice, just like you, Cat.

Don't sweat it, I'm just being silly. Perhaps your Prof is too.

So the OP and your subsequent posts were all joking?

I guess I need to work on my sense of humor as I didn't find it funny.Me being serious is funny business. :)

Don't sweat it, I'm just being silly. Perhaps your Prof is too.

He is beyond silly. I've looked at some of his work on international concerns in bankruptcy law, and I giggled so much, I peed a little.

I notice that, often, those who advocate the old "But it doesn't say exactly that" reserve that objection for policies they dislike, yet when interpretation or broader meaning result in outcomes they favor, they praise judicial wisdom.

Its a piece of paper with words on it

i think one thing that is very unfortunately not in any constitution, is any way of forcing anyone to actually abide by its self evident intent. i mean those in elected, or however else they get there, office, authority of office.

i mean the whole point of having constitutions, is to protect real people, places and things, from the excessess of those in hierarchy, and the problem, the limitation of the concept, is the degree to which their abiding by depends upon the're voluntarilly doing so.

as for the u.s. constitution, i think the seperation of legislation from judiciary is a good idea, so that those who make the laws, wont be above the laws they make, but i really see the executive, which is always a danger of usurping the whole thing, as a pretty useless appendage.

Let's see...

There's a Preamble, seven Articles with various sections and clauses, and 27 amendments, of which one (18th) was later repealed by another (21st), thus really only leaving 26 effective amendments. Some of the stuff in the original seven articles has been overridden or been rendered moot by these amendments (election of senators, three-fifths clause, etc.), but most of it is still intact.

still intact? well yes, other then that its been officially unofficially and unofficially officially, suspended, almost more times then its been adheared to, in the sixty years of my lifetime, by that very useless executive branch in question, presumably because they could, after swearing to "uphold" it.

other countries, some, have had even more interesting variations on that theme, like in some cases replacing theirs entirely every time the dominant power chainges political party hands, which they call formulating a new government.

its all insane. i mean the idea of having a constution is a good one, but conning people into believing its some kind of magic wand that will protect them isn't. demonsterably and repeatedly, it hasn't. other then to a degree, which is better then nothing. but only just.

"The Constitution"? There's only one in this world, is there?

"The Constitution"? There's only one in this world, is there?

Yep. It's a pretty cool boat.

"The Constitution"? There's only one in this world, is there?It's a boat. :p

Yep. It's a pretty cool boat.
It's a boat. :p
There's more than one ship too. Historically.

Boat... Pfft!

"The Constitution"? There's only one in this world, is there?

Only one that counts. The rest are just for kicks and giggles. :eek::p