Should the Supreme Court base decision on a strict interpretation of the Constitution or base desisions on today Values & prinples
2006-10-18 14:35:41 · 4 answers · asked by free_city_stl@sbcglobal.net 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Strict interpretation. Why even bother with written rules, if they can simply be "reinterpreted" to mean whatever is in vogue at the time? Might as well go to a straight democracy if you want that, and not even bother with a Constitution.
Strict interpretation provides predictability, stability, a solid limit on government powers and a solid protection of individual liberties. If a strict interpretation just does not meet our needs, we can always pass a Constitutional amendment.
2006-10-18 14:52:44 · answer #1 · answered by timm1776 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Strict construction is virtually nonexistent today, as our government has progressed a long way since the time of the writing of the Constitution. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court should object to all acts that go directly against anything in the Constitution.
2006-10-18 21:43:40 · answer #2 · answered by Justin A 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given your choices, Strict Interpretation.
Today there are fewer "values & principles" then when the Constitution was written.
2006-10-19 11:56:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never strictly. It was meant to be that way so we can adjust to it as time goes on.
2006-10-18 21:38:09 · answer #4 · answered by Squawkers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋