5 ms·

I don't disagree that legally you are correct. But I think you might be missing my point. The constitution is on display in the nations capital. Copies hang on

by jqm 11y ago

I don't disagree that legally you are correct. But I think you might be missing my point. The constitution is on display in the nations capital. Copies hang on the walls of courtrooms around the country. It is taught to school children. It is (in theory) the supreme law of the land. If it were meant strictly for closed door interpretation by qualified individuals I doubt this would be the case. It would be like the bible during the dark ages. Only highly trained and qualified priests would be able to correctly understand it and pass their deciphering on to the masses. The point is that we live in a democracy. We are entitled to read the agreement we are supposed to be living under and to ascertain that it is (or isn't) being followed. In theory, (if anyone gave a shit), we can then elect people who will appoint judges who actually follow the document rather than weaseling around it for who knows what purpose while keeping the masses in the dark. Now, maybe the system is in need of overhaul for new times. But that is how it is supposed to work. Don't _ever_ feel you aren't qualified to ascertain an injustice or an infraction of the rules. And please don't suggest others don't have this right either. Down that path lies darkness.

gnaritas 11y ago
It is a purposely vague document outlining the basic form of government leaving out all important detail and deferring that to said government and courts; it is by design intended to be interpreted by qualified individuals. The notion that it's some clear simple document anyone can read and properly understand is simply contrary to history and contrary to how law operates even back then. It was never the supreme law of the land so much as the supreme framework of the law to be later implemented by the land. > If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. That sentence quite literally makes no sense; all writing is a matter of interpretation, writing something down doesn't remove interpretation without great effort; in fact that's what legalese is, an attempt to remove all possible interpretation (which still fails continually; thus judges) and the constitution is not written in that manner because it's a general outline, not an attempt at really creating practical law.
- jqm 11y ago
  What exactly is vague about this? "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." or this? "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills" or this? "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Now, I agree in portions such as this: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." That what comprises "public safety" is open to some degree of interpretation. But the document, as a whole is not that opaque. The intent is to be a transparent set of rules. Ones that you and I, as participants in a democracy can view and insist are followed. We can't just say "oh, judges know better" and leave it at that. That isn't a democracy, isn't representative and leads to a very bad place. We have to demand representation and a rule of law. We can't allow the law to be bent to the point it really isn't law anymore. We, as citizens, must be in control of our government. To do that, we must individually be able to read and judge the rules and ascertain if they are or are not being followed. And elect those who agree to uphold rather than subvert the process.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    There's plenty vague about those things; by what rules shall the house and senate operate... unspecified and left to the house and senate to figure out just as a thousand other things are. Most of the document is open to interpretation, as is all written word by man anywhere. Even today people can't agree on the meaning of the second amendment. Just because you can find a few things that seems specific is in no way an argument against my point; I didn't say it had no specifics, I said much of it is vague and intentionally so. The real law of the land is the U.S. Code which is the actual law derived from the framework the constitution lays out. The notion that anyone can understand the constitution is simply wrong; without a correct legal grounding in common law and precedence you have no idea what the constitution actually means or how law is derived from it. Just because you can read a sentence does not mean you understand it the same way everyone else does nor that everyone agrees on what the words mean. That's why we have judges and precedence and a common law foundation, to guide the interpretation in a direction most can agree on.

by jqm 11y ago

gnaritas 11y ago

It is a purposely vague document outlining the basic form of government leaving out all important detail and deferring that to said government and courts; it is by design intended to be interpreted by qualified individuals. The notion that it's some clear simple document anyone can read and properly understand is simply contrary to history and contrary to how law operates even back then. It was never the supreme law of the land so much as the supreme framework of the law to be later implemented by the land. > If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. That sentence quite literally makes no sense; all writing is a matter of interpretation, writing something down doesn't remove interpretation without great effort; in fact that's what legalese is, an attempt to remove all possible interpretation (which still fails continually; thus judges) and the constitution is not written in that manner because it's a general outline, not an attempt at really creating practical law.

jqm 11y ago
What exactly is vague about this? "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." or this? "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills" or this? "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Now, I agree in portions such as this: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." That what comprises "public safety" is open to some degree of interpretation. But the document, as a whole is not that opaque. The intent is to be a transparent set of rules. Ones that you and I, as participants in a democracy can view and insist are followed. We can't just say "oh, judges know better" and leave it at that. That isn't a democracy, isn't representative and leads to a very bad place. We have to demand representation and a rule of law. We can't allow the law to be bent to the point it really isn't law anymore. We, as citizens, must be in control of our government. To do that, we must individually be able to read and judge the rules and ascertain if they are or are not being followed. And elect those who agree to uphold rather than subvert the process.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  There's plenty vague about those things; by what rules shall the house and senate operate... unspecified and left to the house and senate to figure out just as a thousand other things are. Most of the document is open to interpretation, as is all written word by man anywhere. Even today people can't agree on the meaning of the second amendment. Just because you can find a few things that seems specific is in no way an argument against my point; I didn't say it had no specifics, I said much of it is vague and intentionally so. The real law of the land is the U.S. Code which is the actual law derived from the framework the constitution lays out. The notion that anyone can understand the constitution is simply wrong; without a correct legal grounding in common law and precedence you have no idea what the constitution actually means or how law is derived from it. Just because you can read a sentence does not mean you understand it the same way everyone else does nor that everyone agrees on what the words mean. That's why we have judges and precedence and a common law foundation, to guide the interpretation in a direction most can agree on.