the number 435 is established by statute and hasn't changed since 1911.
Statute is not Constitution. Congress writes the US Code.
Do we have a problem of interpretation or a problem of ignoring the plane [sic, you mean "plain"} text?
I don't think I do, but then, I am a humble person. I think the Constitution is not easy to interpret, but it's not hard, either. Sort of in between.
I don't think interpretation is a "problem" so much as a "challenge" which requires an analytical framework, and a good understanding of a couple hundred years of case law.
You see, in America, we go by the English common law tradition of stare decisis (things which are decided stay decided unless they are plainly erroneous). Thus, no litigant, no lawyer, and no judge, gets to start from scratch and interpret the Constitution anew.
There are several analytical frameworks, which different judges adhere to, according to their own personal philosophy of jurisprudence. You can see this not just in today's SCOTUS, but over the entire history of the Court.
Yet, even so, they are able to reach consensus with remarkable frequency, and maintain collegial relationships. Scalia, the most conservative Justice, is close personal friends with Ginsberg, the most liberal justice. They don't always agree with each other, but they respect each other.
It doesn't really bother me that people think it's easy to interpret the Constitution. They're never actually going to get a chance to do so. Not until they pay their dues and become part of the system they despise.
It's a free country. Think what you like. |
