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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (91699)	12/21/2004 2:44:06 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793755

Well I'm not a lawyer and I don't have a Ph D. I wouldn't say that I have a theory of jurisprudence developed to the point where I could write a book about it, or make detailed regulations based on it but in general I think interpreting the constitution should be trying to see what the constitution says not trying to see how you can make it support what you want. I look to things like the meaning of the words in terms of definitions of English grammar, and also to the intended meaning of the law when there is solid evidence to indicate an intended meaning. I think understanding the abstract principles behind the actual statements in the constitution is a good thing but I don't think you should in general take a clause or phrase from the constitution see that it is connected to some idea and than say that idea is part of the constitution, for examples as was done with the "constitutional right to privacy". I recognize that there are real gaps and uncertainties but while sometimes a judge will have to do something in those gaps that doesn't mean that he has to or should decide that since the constitution is imperfect and not always 100% precise that he will make up new law whenever there is the slightest bit of justification for it. Tim