Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (53203)	7/18/2002 10:27:09 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"OK I see that you sort of have my point covered" I am pleased to hear that. "I was not outright disavowing the test, just expressing less then 100% confidence in it." Naturally, I have not attempted (and I do not intend) to dispute your confidence level. "The idea that anything that does not pass the Lemon test is automatically unconstitutional is no axiomatic" It is certainly factual. A ruling by the Supreme Law that something is unconstitutional means just that. It may not be unconstitutional tomorrow; but it is today. There is no essential and absolutist meaning to the Constitution. That is why it is called a living document. It is legally interpreted by the men and women, so authorized, to meet their obligations to a dynamic and changing society. Again, the idea that a particular interpretation is logically or intellectually unassailable does not mean it is invulnerable, nor that it is the only such within the set. "I don't think they are infallible, or that their interpretations of the constitution are part of the constitutions essence, they are just opinions." You cannot separate the "essence" of the Constitution from the interpretations. Without interpretation it is merely squiggly lines on a piece of paper. The meaning of the Constitution is always a question of opinion and judgement. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, so the opinions that count most are the ones which determine the rules and regulations which you will be forced to live under. This is why I choose to focus on the interpretations of the Supreme Court. I don't have any interest in giving an opinion on the millions of other interpretations that people may fancy. I gave you my opinion on the lemon test, and I gave my opinion that the "logic" of the test was unassailable, and that the finding of the test on the issue in question was "logically" unassailable. This is to say that the argument is cohesive and sound given the truth of the premises. The soundness of the conclusion may of course be changed by adducing additional premises, or by challenging existing ones. I did not say the test itself was invulnerable, or exclusive to logic. Nor does my comment imply that the interpretation is penultimate either in kind or degree. But it is the interpretation which needs to be evaluated at the present time as a matter of law. And thus it is the interpretation on which I hazarded my opinion.