6 ms·
I've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.
by esaym 11y ago
I've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.
- pmoriarty 11y agoThat's the nature of communication. There can be no communication without interpretation.
- Natsu 11y agoWe do have some separation between eval (legislative) and apply (executive) though, but that mostly only works for a few things like presidential pardons.
- InclinedPlane 11y agoNot possible for it to be otherwise. Also, not desirable. The law is not like an OS that society runs on, that's a very dangerous but sadly pervasive idea. The law is a tool that society uses for its own betterment, hopefully in the service of justice and liberty.
- intopieces 11y agoWithout it, our Constitution would be almost worthless. Segregation was brought down by the Interstate Commerce Clause!
- sk5t 11y agoI would argue that the ICC is something that seriously diminishes the Constitution, as the courts have applied such tortured logic so as to allow the federal government to regulate virtually anything.
- drumdance 11y agoI personally think the Constitution should be thrown out and start over. It's an archaic document reflecting a radically different society. Some love to treat it as sacred, but if it's so sacred how come we've had to amend it so much? Though come to think of it I wouldn't mind a few amendments to the Bible and Koran.
- intopieces 11y agoThe veneration of the Constitution is a weak point in American government. It's riddled with policy mistakes (see: Impeachment, where the Vice President would cast the deciding vote in his own trial should there be a tie) and rediculous vagaries (Judges serve for life so long as they remain "in good behavior"), not to mention the validation of the fundamental evil of slavery which was, at the time, already a point of contention. Rather than an objective framework for government, the Constitution has morphed into a shield against discourse, a talisman wielded to justify policies that deserve to be questioned. It's our National Bible, where things are right because see, it says it right there.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago> It's riddled with policy mistakes (see: Impeachment, where the Vice President would cast the deciding vote in his own trial should there be a tie) As mistakes go, this one is purely cosmetic. It has no actual implications; there would be nothing even minorly surprising about saying "the impeached party wins ties".
- intopieces 11y agoNot sure what gives you that impression. During the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Chase cast 2 tie breaking votes on procedural issues. The purpose of this provision (Article 1, Section 3 - Chief Justice presides over the trial of the President in cases of impeachment) was separation of powers but the authors appear to have overlooked that value when it comes to the Vice President.
- Dylan16807 11y agoIt doesn't matter. At worst it says that impeachment issues have to win by 2 votes. That doesn't damage separation of powers in any way. It's just an oddity.
- thaumasiotes 11y agoI don't think the VP can vote unless there's a tie, so it just says impeachment issues have to win.
- Dylan16807 11y agoWow, who downvoted you for that? Wickard v. Filburn, seriously.
- Retra 11y agoWhat else would you do with it?
- copperx 11y agoThis is your engineering or science background clashing with reality. I, for one, am glad that laws are interpreted and not taken as hard rules. Stupidity would reign otherwise, because it is impossible to create a hard and fast rule that will stand the test of time in a changing civilization. Unfortunately, I have met too many CS types that are surprised by the concept of law interpretation. That's why liberal education is important.
- ahomescu1 11y agoI was following and agreeing with you (and was going to upvote you), until the last 2 sentences. You could have made your point without bashing "CS types" and CS/engineering education.
- im3w1l 11y agoDon't you think it is scary to invest that much power in a post that is unelected and for life?