How do you think the Constitution should be interpreted; strictly, so as to protect the right of the states to

Question

How do you think the Constitution should be interpreted; strictly, so as to protect the right of the states to decide controversial matters for themselves, or in an elastic manner, so as to be able to address modern problems?

Answer 1

I think both ways would be ideal, because our society tends to go one way or the other. But the Constituion could never be interpreted strictly. Jefferson himself proved this when he demanded a strict interpretation of the Constitution only to contradict himself by taking advantage of his executive power of treaties, thus making the Louisiana Purchase.
I think that the elastic clause, however, gives the Constitution the power to bend according to time, events, people, and circumstances. Strictly or loosely- the Consitution can be stretched both ways. The modern times of today will be the ancient times of tomorrow.

Answer 2

(Thumbs down for the horribly ignorant answer given by eltoro.)

There are different parts of the Constitution, and they should not all be interpreted "strictly" or "loosely." In the words of Prof. John Hart Ely, "Constitutional provisions exist on a spectrum, ranging from the relatively specific to the extremely open-textured."

Some parts of the Constitution are addressed to the issue of describing the powers of Congress, the federal legislature. Those parts of the Constitution have been interpreted quite "loosely" for a long time, and only in the recent past has there been at least a little bit of "reigning in" on that looseness.

Other parts of the Constitution describe the rights of individuals to be free of government regulation. These parts are primarily known as "the Bill of Rights," which are defined by Judge Learned Hand are the first eight amendments and the 14th. But in regards to interpretting those amendments, there is no all-encompassing guideline on whether to interpret all of those amendments "loosely" or "strictly."

Here are some of my own previous discussions about interpretting the Constitution.
One of my best answers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As6l0bYYcnrqOyo_0tcacWrty6IX?qid=20060908175423AAliALu&show=7#profile-info-d3d1f6e5f096f4a38fd7bfdab41b8a84aa

One of my questions:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As40hdd1tObPXfQaXv6sZTTty6IX?qid=20060922074009AAB54Qd
.

Answer 3

Both --- where the text indicates a plain intent, follow that plain intent even if the literal text is more restricted.

Example -- the 1st Amendment protects speech and the press -- but says nothing about TV or the internet. Yet, the clear intent is to protect all communication, even new forms.

Where the text does not indicate a plain intent -- I think the text should be construed against the govt (state or federal) and in favor of the people.

I believe that the "states rights" argument is not as important nowadays, given how diverse and mobile the national population is -- so, I prefer granting the strongest protections to the people, more than either state or federal govt.

Answer 4

How does the form no longer handle "cutting-area" issues? in case you opt to alter it, there's a technique for amending it. to understand the will for a strict interpretation, you are able to understand why the writers have been somewhat strident related to the government being constrained in an extremely for sure defined way. you in addition to would could understand that the form is a settlement between the sources of potential - the individuals and the states - and the federal government created via those sources. particular powers have been ceded with a view to grant the federal government the potential to behave interior of its limits. a central authority which could vote itself powers previous its constitutional limits, including we've immediately, is a central authority that is achieveable to freedoms and rights. and that i've got yet to be certain a single occasion of a "cutting-area" problem that demands the "elastic" interpretation of the form. And nota bene, each and every time an "elastic" interpretation became used, it became to advance the potential of government and its intrusion into factors it has no actual authority to be in.

Answer 5

It shouldn't be interpreted at all---!

This document was written`by a forefather who was more
preoccupied with getting home to engage in forep---
with one his slaves ----

And endorsed by delegates who were anxious to go someplace where there was air conditioning ----
which didn't exist---nor did TV,or Movies,or
Automobiles or Airplanes or most of the things
that dominate our lives !!
None of them could get elected to Dogcatcher
today ?

My first questions if I met one of them today ?

"What do you know about anything in today's
world? and---
Why should I listen to you ?
And what's this Fairy Tale about
"all men being created equal ?"

And my neighbor raises Pit Bulls and carries
an AK-47 in his car----says you guarantee him
that right ! And what's a Musket ? --oh-u -know that !--

So what do you know about Enron and "pre-
emptive wars and WMDs and Terrorists ( No--
they don't wear Redcoats? ")

And did you consider Global Warming and
No-bid Government Contracts ?

And for that matter what do you know about
Lobbyists and guys like Gonzales and torture?
I know you know about "Taxation without Representation----
SO DO WE !

And who is Brad Pitt ---Paris Hilton---Britney Spears?""
That's what I'd ask---how about YOU ? Meaning my
vast audience of "Contacts"

DON'T INTERPRET IT ----DUMP IT---AND WRITE
ONE TO FIT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN !!!

Wise old Benjamin Franklin would agree if he were
here----he would even ask to be the
First Signer of the New Constitution !!!!

Answer 6

the ability of the states to decide anything was taken away with the death of the Republic with the start of the Great War of Northern Aggression

Answer 7

those who argue for states rights are usually arguing for something outrageous and evil, and they use states rights as code to let each state be as evil as they choose to be.

For example,if each state wanted to have slavery, then it would be up to them, or if each state wanted to discriminate against minorities they could. If each state wanted to have segregation they could.

We are many states but we are one country and one people...all under one constitution.. the major issues should be uniform for the whole country.

Answer 8

I think that black people don't deserve rights

Answer 9

I think YOU need to read it!