SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ilaine who wrote (91263)12/19/2004 6:33:25 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 793750
 
To begin with, it requires acknowledging that even strict constructionists must interpret the Constitution, if only to recognize that having an army implies that the army will have guns and bullets and uniforms, and all the rest of that.

I think some interpretation is required but it doesn't have to be very involved in most cases.

As to your specific example I wouldn't call that interpreting the constitution. No one is interpreting the constitution and saying "the constitution says we must have this weapon for the army but not this one". The exact equipment and structure of the army is not specified by the constitution. When you decide to have corps, divisions, brigades ect. and decide to use M-16s and wear BDUs you aren't reading anything in to the constitution.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News