Authors of our constitution & amendments explained clearly what each measure meant, such as whose rights they would protect, how, why, etc. A vital part of the give and take necessary to reach agreement.
Descriptive speeches to congress were also recorded (written) and saved for posterity.
All can be made readily available to the court.
Supreme Court Justices interpret ONLY the words, as written and are not required to review the explanations that led to ratification. (Remember: legislators must be re-elected, often; Justices, by no say of ppl, stay in for life)
Their decisions are often hotly disputed in chambers, seen as nonsensical by the people and cause strife for years.
Q: Should the Court be required to base their interpretations on what the authors and congress said and wrote in order to reach agreement and ratify?
This is only possible by amendment.
In Favor?
Opposed?
2007-01-03
10:08:15
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Law & Ethics