- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I am no bird; and no net ensnares me: I am a free human being with an independent will.
-- Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre
-- Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre
Red:
Oh, my...I can't believe a self-avowed conservative "went there."
- Judicial Activism v. Strict Constructionism
- Should the SCOTUS Abide by Strict Constructionist Philosophy?
- Our Constitution's Design: The Implications for Interpretation
Blue:
- Practices are behaviors.
- What matters most is that across all to which one ascribes and supports, there is complete coherence among the principles that guide one's choices to cotton to "this" and not to "that." And therein lies the problem with the jurisprudential strict constructionist (literalism) principle: its rigidity forces one who is principled to accept, the instant normative ethics and/or crisis enter the picture, protocols and outcomes that one (most folks anyway) would rather reject, which upon so doing, one is made immediately a hypocrite, one who doesn't so much as follow his own principles, thus unprincipled.
The following questions one must answer, say, in times of crisis afflicted decision making highlight the nature of the coherence dilemma strict constructionists face.
-- What are the criteria for abrogating one's principle(s)?
-- If one doesn't specify criteria, one's saying that anything goes.
-- If specifies criteria, those criteria amount to a principle: however, if it contradicts some other principle, one's reasoning is incoherent.
To wit:
Above I've remarked in an abstract context, so let's look at a few specific example of the incoherence strict constructionism causes:
[*=1]Gun rights: If one's principles say the right to bear arms is unimpeachable, to adhere to that principle, one must also adhere to that principle on a nationally endogenous level, but not do so exogenously?
[*=1]Abortion: The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about abortion.
The only way to make a Constitutional pro-life argument is to proffer a loose constructionist line, yet to take the conservative stance on gun rights, one must adopt a strict constructionist line. Contrast that with liberals' lines on both issues -- re: both matters, liberals proffer loose constructionist justifications for their view of what the Constitution allows and disallows.
Some might say their principles are subordinate to the Constitution. Well, that's fine, but if so, one is thus a "slave" to a set of guidelines, principles, someone else promulgated rather than being beholden to one's own coherent set of principles. One can certainly bind oneself by extant jurisprudential principles, tenets and dicta, but taking that course, one is no longer fully free.
I can't speak for others, but I damn sure won't yield my freedom to set my own course. I can live with being subject to whatever law be; however, I will die before I let someone else or some legal principle constrain my will and actions. IIRC, our Founders felt the same; it's what moved them to revolt.
Some might say their principles are subordinate to the Constitution. Well, that's fine, but if so, one is thus a "slave" to a set of guidelines, principles, someone else promulgated rather than being beholden to one's own coherent set of principles. One can certainly bind oneself by extant jurisprudential principles, tenets and dicta, but taking that course, one is no longer fully free.
I can't speak for others, but I damn sure won't yield my freedom to set my own course. I can live with being subject to whatever law be; however, I will die before I let someone else or some legal principle constrain my will and actions. IIRC, our Founders felt the same; it's what moved them to revolt.
People pay for what they do, and still more for what they have allowed themselves to become. And they pay for it very simply; by the lives they lead.
-- James Baldwin, No Name in the Street
-- James Baldwin, No Name in the Street
