VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:55:11 12/18/02 Wed
Author: Lawshark
Subject: Yeah, it's a real slippery slope...
In reply to: bfny 's message, "well, that's does seem contorted" on 11:40:57 12/18/02 Wed

but there's no need for the Constitution to be the be all and end all for every particular policy question. The debate really does get more sophisticated on the point you bring up. Even the strict constructionists will do SOME interpretation (looking to contempory texts and expositions on the subject)...often referred to as "original intent", and some interpretation is obviously necessary...the meat of the matter is how MUCH interpretation. That's really the main argument on conservative v. liberal justices. Like I said, even if Roe v. Wade disappears tomorrow, it doesn't do a damn thing to make abortion illegal...but it does open the door for a legislature to make it illegal. So all the hysteria about how conservative judges will "roll back rights" is a bunch of crap.

As for the interpretation bit, one of the best spots for understanding what the heck the Constitution was intended to do is to read the Federalist Papers. That's the collection of essays that were published in newspapers and broadsheets prior to ratification of the Constitution by New York. Written by Publius (aka, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison), it presented the argument in favor of the Constitution...much of it directed at allaying the fears of those who thought that it would create a federal government with too much power (oops). Anyway, I found a link to it online where you can read it, but I would highly highly recommend reading it...it's quite interesting and one of the seminal texts in American history. I've read it 3 or 4 times and it's not boring...even now.

http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html

BTW, the two most famous of the Papers are #10 and #51...read those first if you want.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.