I keep hearing that the Surpreme Court is the branch of Gov't that interprets the constitution.

Since when does a document written in plain english need interpretation?

Each time I hear the SC interprets the constitution I think to myself that they really mean twist it to say something that is doesn't say.

Ban the Supreme Court.

It's for the children!

Quoted: I keep hearing that the Surpreme Court is the branch of Gov't that interprets the constitution. Since when does a document written in plain english need interpretation? Each time I hear the SC interprets the constitution I think to myself that they really mean twist it to say something that is doesn't say.

No offense, but that is ridiculous.  The beauty of our Constitution is its simplicity.  With simplicity, however, comes ambiguity.  For instance, the 4th Amendment bar unreasonable search and seizures.  Can you tell me when a particular search by the police becomes "unreasonable with the ambit of the Constitution?  Can the police officer who pulls you over do that?

It's becuase the Constitution, by design, in not prescriptive. It does not, no was or should it ever be intended to account for every facet  of American life.

Consider the anti-gunners' common argument that the framers of the Bill of Rights could not have envisioned the MP5K when they wrote the Second Amendment. That's certainly true, but completely irrelevant. Although there has yet to be a major test case of theSecond Amendment, when there is, it will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to evaluate the charges and respective defense to determine if a denial of a right guarnateed by hte Constitution has occurred.

The Court is not "interpreting" the Constitution on an ad-hoc basis. They are interpreting case law to determine whether a particular lower Court decision has violated any provision of the Constitution. "Interpret the Constitution" is kind of a shorthand description of a much more involved process.

Quoted: I keep hearing that the Surpreme Court is the branch of Gov't that interprets the constitution. Since when does a document written in plain english need interpretation? Each time I hear the SC interprets the constitution I think to myself that they really mean twist it to say something that is doesn't say.

Any written or spoken word must be interpreted.  Deriving meaning from the words and sentences is interpretation.

If the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what the constitution does or does not mean, then who is?  Who do you want to have that duty, to decide whether some particular law or action was constitutional?

And don't say "It is obvious" or "You could just tell," because in either case there must be someone interpreting the document to say that it is obvious, or to be able to tell.

Jim

we need to appoint a dozen or so arfcommers to interpret threads.

Quoted: Quoted: I keep hearing that the Surpreme Court is the branch of Gov't that interprets the constitution. Since when does a document written in plain english need interpretation? Each time I hear the SC interprets the constitution I think to myself that they really mean twist it to say something that is doesn't say. Any written or spoken word must be interpreted.  Deriving meaning from the words and sentences is interpretation. If the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what the constitution does or does not mean, then who is?  Who do you want to have that duty, to decide whether some particular law or action was constitutional? And don't say "It is obvious" or "You could just tell," because in either case there must be someone interpreting the docume how ant ato say that it is obvious, or to be able to tell. Jim

how about the people?

This is why it's so important for the Libs to get their guys on the bench.

Frankly... The Libs will do anything to have control over people... They don't think us rubes can think for ourselves.  

Quoted: we need to appoint a dozen or so arfcommers to interpret threads.

What david_g17 is saying is that despite his penchant for certain varieties of pie, he feels that any Zombie waering ***PAT must be dealt with as a Zombie first, and a Marine second. Furthermore, david_g17 clearly asserts that it's SODA, not POP.

It's obvious!

Somebody had to decide whether or not wiretapping implicated the 4th Am. Are you claiming you can tell from the plain language of the text that electrons humming through a wire hung above a public street, and/or zipping through the air on microwaves or radio waves are "houses, papers, persons, and effects?" You think that "freedom of the speech or of the press" self-evidently includes TV, radio, picket signs, leaflet distribution, and wearing armbands?


ETA: "How about the people?" The people? You are willing to subject your rights to free speech, gun ownership, the practice of unpopular religions, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure to a plebiscite? Dear God, preserve us from democrats.

Quoted: Quoted: we need to appoint a dozen or so arfcommers to interpret threads. What david_g17 is saying is that despite his penchant for certain varieties of pie, he feels that any Zombie waering ***PAT must be dealt with as a Zombie first, and a Marine second. Furthermore, david_g17 clearly asserts that it's SODA, not POP. It's obvious!

If by "soda" you mean "cold drink," maybe it's obvious.

Quoted: I keep hearing that the Surpreme Court is the branch of Gov't that interprets the constitution. Since when does a document written in plain english need interpretation? Each time I hear the SC interprets the constitution I think to myself that they really mean twist it to say something that is doesn't say.

Because its not as plainly written as you seem to think it is. There is always someone whose legal situation tests some wording ior clause n the Constitution and a decision needs to be made as to how the facts of that case apply to the Consitution and vice versa.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution  


I feel this amendment requires absolutely NO interpretation.

Militias are formed from legal, law abiding gun owners who wish to fight a tyrranical government or foreign invading army.

It's actually funny when my liberal co-wrokers claim militia means military.

HS1

Quoted: I keep hearing that the Surpreme Court is the branch of Gov't that interprets the constitution. Since when does a document written in plain english need interpretation? Each time I hear the SC interprets the constitution I think to myself that they really mean twist it to say something that is doesn't say.

Since SCOTUS gave itself that Power in Marbury vs. Madison

Since when?  Since the day after it was signed.  It was designed to be ambiguous in many areas.  And the reason the SCOTUS gets to interpret it is because that's how they wrote it and that's what they meant.

You guys are all for "the people" to interpret it.  Remember "the people" elected Clinton twice and Carter once.  Yeah your fine with "the people" as long as they agree with you.

Actually, the reason the constitution doesn't cover every aspect of life is not because the founders didn't have foresight.

Its because they only meant for the Federal Government to preside over an extremely narrow segment of life.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I keep hearing that the Surpreme Court is the branch of Gov't that interprets the constitution. Since when does a document written in plain english need interpretation? Each time I hear the SC interprets the constitution I think to myself that they really mean twist it to say something that is doesn't say. Any written or spoken word must be interpreted.  Deriving meaning from the words and sentences is interpretation. If the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what the constitution does or does not mean, then who is?  Who do you want to have that duty, to decide whether some particular law or action was constitutional? And don't say "It is obvious" or "You could just tell," because in either case there must be someone interpreting the docume how ant ato say that it is obvious, or to be able to tell. Jim how about the people?

Which ones?  Are you going to have the People vote on every legal question in every court in the country?

Or perhaps our congressional representatives will decide?

It is all well and good to have the People interpret the constitution, and we do.  But eventually one citizen petitions the court because of a disagreement with another citizen over what some facet of the constitution means.

Who will make the decision when two citizens disagree?  Or when a citizen disagrees with a government agency?

Jim