11–20 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never about what the laws say, but rather about who interprets the laws.
I've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.
The law is not like an OS that society runs on, that's a very dangerous but sadly pervasive idea. The law is a tool that society uses for its own betterment, hopefully in the service of justice and liberty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I'm aware that phrase isn't anywhere in the US constitution -- just the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't have any legal force. The phrase "el libre desarrollo de la personalidad" however is present in the Mexican constitution, although in its context it isn't clear to me how it applies.
True, but people still basically accept it as a canonical element of American philosophy and believe it should be used to justify governmental actions. The Constitution contains the very similar phrase "promote the general welfare".
The Declaration of Independence has indeed been cited by the Supreme Court to give evidence of the intent of the drafters of the Constitution, where the phrasing in the Constitution is ambiguous. So you are perfectly correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.
That's the nature of communication. There can be no communication without interpretation.
This is a sane and direct response to exactly that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never about what the laws say, but rather about who interprets the laws.
I've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.
Without it, our Constitution would be almost worthless. Segregation was brought down by the Interstate Commerce Clause!
>"In a 4-1 ruling, the court found that prohibitions on using marijuana violated the 'right to the free development of personality'" Perhaps that is out of context, and I don't know their constitution as a whole, but I am not finding a lot of sense in that sentence. If drug use can be considered a "right to the free development of personality", then how else could America's "right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of…
>"In a 4-1 ruling, the court found that prohibitions on using marijuana violated the 'right to the free development of personality'" Perhaps that is out of context, and I don't know their constitution as a whole, but I am not finding a lot of sense in that sentence. If drug use can be considered a "right to the free development of personality", then how else could America's "right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of…
The closest analogue in the Constituon is the idea that due process protects those fundamental rights inherent in "ordered liberty."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without it, our Constitution would be almost worthless. Segregation was brought down by the Interstate Commerce Clause!
I would argue that the ICC is something that seriously diminishes the Constitution, as the courts have applied such tortured logic so as to allow the federal government to regulate virtually anything.
Some love to treat it as sacred, but if it's so sacred how come we've had to amend it so much? Though come to think of it I wouldn't mind a few amendments to the Bible and Koran.