Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DMaA who wrote (124058)	7/8/2005 1:30:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) of 793948

Re: Constitution (and Wikipedia): very interesting back-and-forth about "originalism" vs. "strict construction" as methods of interpreting the Constitution. en.wikipedia.org One of the writers gives a good example of Scalia fudging things in order to obtain a desired outcome, an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause so as to outlaw medical marijuana which is contrary to his narrow reading of the Commerce Clause in the school-gun case and the Violence Against Women case. Interpreting the Constitution only seems easy from the outside. You probably have a great deal of insight into how lawyers fail to comprehend what it takes to perform surgery or administer anesthesia or provide nursing care in an ICU. The analogy isn't a perfect one, but it's fair. Some fields of endeavor are more likely to produce precision than others. Maybe, as a computer programmer, you could write a program that would allow a robot to interpret the Constitution. Then I could come up with individual cases and we'd test your robot and see how it did.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next