Do you believe in the strict interpritation of the constitution or do you treat it as a living document that needs to be changed periodically.
2007-10-15 05:27:12 · 5 answers · asked by Big Dave 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The two are not exclusive -- a strict interpretation can still be literal, but based on the the literal meaning and understanding of modern times.
Just as a loose "morals-based" interpretation can be based either on original intent or modern sensibilities.
The simplest example -- 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and press. Nothing in the text of the document says anything about phones, email, websites, or any other electronic communications.
Under an "original intent" framework, whether strictly literal or or loosely interpreted, electronic communications would not be protected. Under a "living document" interpetation, even for someone who is a strict literalist, then the electronic equivalents of speech and press would be equally protected.
Personally, I am a strict literalist, but believe in applying the modern literal construction, rather than trying to guess what a dozen or more people 230+ years ago were thinking.
2007-10-15 05:41:08 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The constitution was clearly meant to be interpreted and amended over time. Look at the Bill of Rights, and how generally various rights are stated. You have a right to free speech, yet restrictions (for example: slander, 'clear and present danger', privacy, classified documents) are placed on that free speech by other laws and court decisions.
It is up to the Supreme Court to determine how the Constitution should be applied and what the language of the Constitution means in practical terms, and the Constitution has an amendment process so that the actual language of the Constitution can be changed over time. (If the Constitution could never change, slaves would still count as 3/5 of a person--there would have been no way for the federal government to outlaw slavery--it would have been left for each state to decide.)
2007-10-15 05:42:32 · answer #2 · answered by wayfaroutthere 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They only want you to believe it's confusing ! It's not ! That is only a ploy to change or munipulat the words as no one has a clue after awhile, then new rules start ! Don't be fooled ! Who is the great deciever ? That's right !
...A tip from Eugene for all you Bible pro’s out there ...
...Some help to keep those from going crazy, reading scriptures at a glance or just opening your Bible and point at random to a verse and believe somehow it has special meaning just for you !:? That is the quickest way to insanity and context errors !!!
...It should never be done ! The term "Interpret or Interpretation" is not what we believe or taught at all ! It was used a lot in the New Testament, but was always used to translate what was spoken in the ministry, someone spoke and another clarified, interpreting the language so all could understand ! AND the interpreter could say it in his own words, BUT NOT change the meaning !......The terms were never used to mean we could make up whatever we like or have an opinion about!
...How do we know that ? Peter makes it perfectly clear to us !
...2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more ":sure word;" =(affirmed) of prophecy;" whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, (be careful) as unto a light (truth) that shineth in a dark (confused) place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (Finally understood!) 20: "Knowing this first," that NO PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE is of any "PRIVATE" INTERPRETATION. The use of "PRIVATE" there is a word for "ones own opinion or idea", (guess work or change the meaning.) Take your pick! 21: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of men, but holy men of God spake (speaking for a crowd) as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.. In that case there was always an interpreter!...Also take care to know tongue means language ! Now we see that dim light begin to get brighter !
..Look it up !.. NO PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE is of any "private", Greek=(( idios (id'-ee-os); of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, i.e. one's own; by implication, private or separate: )) 20: "Knowing this first," that "NO PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE" is of any "PRIVATE" INTERPRETATION .. Peter says NO ! We cannot go there!
..Now we also have people interpreting the constitution !? I was not written with multiple meanings !?
2014-06-13 07:05:50 · answer #3 · answered by Eugene C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Constitution is clearly a living document that should be interpreted over time (not necessarily changed). The framers of the Constitution would not have put in a process for amendment had they not thought similarily.
2007-10-15 05:33:07 · answer #4 · answered by words_smith_4u 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
new york isn't known for their mayors being smart, i mean we are talking about the dumbass who tries to speak spanish in his speeches and ***** it up and also tried to ban how much soda someone can buy this new bullshit doesnt surprise and shouldnt be taken seriously because bloomberg is nothing more than a high functioning retard.
2016-03-12 23:28:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i believe it should be amend because causes change in period of time.
2007-10-15 05:33:14 · answer #6 · answered by peter a 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋