Me said:
There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Court power to interpret the Constitution.
Followed with:
Double Naught Spy said:
I love to read this logic. It seems so good when in fact it is poor.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's poor. If you can show me where the SCOTUS has been granted power to interpret the Constitution, that would be a good place for you to start your argument.
Double Naught Spy said:
Just because something is not directly stated in the Constitution does not mean it isn't covered by the Constitution or somehow doesn't exist or isn't legal.
I'd like you to point out anything supporting this claim that though that particular something isn't directly stated in the Constitution, it
IS covered by the Constitution in regard to any supposed power of the Court over the Constitution. The following from you:
Double Naught Spy said:
The classic example I mentioned previously is case law. Case law is not covered by the Constitution in any direct manner and so by the logic presented, has no power. Yet, we have Constitutional case law like Miranda.
I wouldn't call
Miranda "constitutional" law. The "technical" name for this action is called a prophylactic rule. The Court has no power to enact legislation and
Miranda, regardless of what ever good it is supposed to do, is legislation from the bench. Any such requirements to "read someone their rights" should come from the legislature and not the Court.
For those arguing against me who seem to want to hear it from "scholars" or other high officials, will Scalia and Thomas do?
The notion of prophylactic rules is controversial. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antinon Scalia and Clarence Thomas have argued against them, writing that the ability of judges to create these rules "is an immense and frightening antidemocratic power, and it does not exist."
These prophylactic rules are an interesting concept, don't you think? Sounds good. Sounds like a whole new way to protect our rights by calling it a new right. Throwing these "condoms" on the Constitution is not the way to go. Requiring law enforcement to explain the enumerated rights to a suspect being arrested is not their duty and is out of place. If any of these rights have been violated, the suspect can argue the case in court. There is no need for this bogus law or "prophylactic rule" if you prefer.
Case law robs every subsequent litigant of his day in court. No two cases are exactly the same. Relying on a ruling from a previous case to decide every subsequent case, no matter how similar, is a miscarriage of justice. And how would you justify altering or going against case law as does sometimes happen? Does every criminal who has been punished under the old case law get to go free?
Double Naught Spy said:
More correctly, SCOTUS does not decide what the Constitution says, but how it is interpreted and it has the final word in the matter as it is the highest court, as established by the Constitution.
Wow! That's deep! Let me dig into this a little, OK? You say the Court doesn't decide what the Constitution says, but does decide how it is interpreted. Seems a bit oxymoron to me. There are two definitions of "interpret" that apply here:
1. to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms.
2. to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : construe
I could accept the first definition of "interpret" as defining what the Constitution says. However, the Court has run amok by using the second definition of "interpret". Therefore, I will grant that no power to interpret the Constitution has been given to the Court, or even exists for the Court. In fact, the word "interpret" does not appear in the Constitution. I will go so far as to say anyone in government is forbidden to interpret anything beyond that which is plainly written in the Constitution. No less than thrice in the Constitution are those in government specifically forbidden to construe.
Double Naught Spy said:
Did the Supreme Court not rule on the interpretation of the First Amendment that noted that freedom of speech has limitations? SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment as not being absolute.
The fact that the First Amendment is not absolute is a
DUH. To begin with, the First Amendment prohibits abridgment of free speech but does not protect speech as a right. If a person were to possess a right to free speech, there could be no crime of perjury. You may say what you will, but you are subject to and responsible for any adverse effects your speech might have, and on the converse, you may also reap the rewards of any good that might come of your speech. The mere stating of, and ruling with, the obvious facts is not an interpretation.
Double Naught Spy said:
You can claim all you want that the Supreme Court can't interpret the Constitution, but the fact remains that it does interpret the Constitution and no successful challenges have ever been made that say that the Supreme Court cannot do it.
The simple fact that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and has not ruled against itself in doing so does not make it right. That's a paradox. Would you expect a king to say he cannot rule his land?
Anyway, we live by the rule of law. Law lives by the rule of the Constitution. We are the authors of the Constitution.
Double Naught Spy said:
Thank you, Woody, for admitting that you are a Liberal as you are obviously providing your interpretation of the Constitution.
It's nice to see you have a sense of humor. But for those who missed the humor, I abide the Constitution. I read and obey. I see a "No Turn On Red" sign, I wait for green before I turn. I don't claim the light is magenta and turn regardless. That's the difference between abide and interpret.
Cosmoline said:
Woody, I realize you enjoy bringing up your personal theories about the Constitution, but I'm not really seeing the connection with the potential lawsuits against the university and the local cops.
I'm merely defending my initial supposition in my comment - number 6 in this thread - and JohnBT's rebuttal of my rebuttal of his claim that a lot of the victims weren't old enough to get a Virginia carry permit. It all follows from there.
My technique is simple. I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things - just as numbers have value and you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math.
Woody
"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to prevent crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood