- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Define "interpretation".So the Constitution is NOT open to interpretation?
Define "interpretation".So the Constitution is NOT open to interpretation?
So the Constitution is NOT open to interpretation?
So the Constitution is NOT open to interpretation?
Define "interpretation".
The only way leftists can get anything does is to exploit the "too old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation: nature of the Constitution.
So the Constitution is NOT open to interpretation?
As I specifically pointed out in the OP, that's not the question I'm asking.
Is it or is it not constitutional to restrict the sale/purchase of firearms?
You mean like clarifying the meaning of the term "arms" as it is used in the 2nd?noun
the action of explaining the meaning of something
Who has said no such thing.Chevydriver asks "who here said that" ???/ that would be Goobieman.
Thank god no.... If it were open to "interpetation" it would be meaningless. We have a constitutional proccess to amend said constitution.... We would not need this if it was open to "interpretation" based on the current societies "feelings" and "whims".
The only way leftists can get anything does is to exploit the "too old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation: nature of the Constitution.
Then what do you think it is that the Supreme Court does in explaining the language of the Constitution?
They explain the language of the constitution.:shrug:Then what do you think it is that the Supreme Court does in explaining the language of the Constitution?
Yes, I did. However, what I said is not a statement that the Constitution is not open to interpretation - it is a statement describing the only way leftists can get things done.you did say this
Strawman????? What the devil are you talking about?
Just cannot admit you were wrong can you?
The Supreme Court is not tasked with interpreting the Constitution. It is tasked with examining laws and determining whether those laws are at variance with the Constitution. Your idea that the Court interprets the Constitution is a non-starter.Then what do you think it is that the Supreme Court does in explaining the language of the Constitution?
They explain the language of the constitution.:shrug:
There's a clear difference between taking a given situation and applying the constitution to it and deciding that you want to be able to do someting and then finding a way to bend the Constitution around it.
The Supreme Court is not tasked with interpreting the Constitution. It is tasked with examining laws and determining whether those laws are at variance with the Constitution. Your idea that the Court interprets the Constitution is a non-starter.
Yes, I imagine that difference is ones own perspectives and beliefs about a certain issue and if the current SC interpretation agrees with you or not.
No, not really. The dead gieaway is wheen the court uses terms like "eminations" and "peumbras".Yes, I imagine that difference is ones own perspectives and beliefs about a certain issue and if the current SC interpretation agrees with you or not.
Really what it is is the ultimate appellate court, so yeah, I agree.It's not even really tasked with doing that. It's tasked with being a court. It doesn't actually do all that much determination of constitutionality.
The Supreme Court is not tasked with interpreting the Constitution. It is tasked with examining laws and determining whether those laws are at variance with the Constitution. Your idea that the Court interprets the Constitution is a non-starter.
Judicial Review came about in Marbury v Madison, where the court decided that it had the power to decide that it had the power of Judicial Review.I am not aware of your credentials to make this determination or if you are merely giving a laymans uneducated opinion. This source says it is very much a power of the SC to interpret the Constitution.