3 ms·
Many of the rules for the house and senate are specified, very clearly, as well. Sorry, it isn't a "vague document" nor a "rough guideline". It is very specifi
by jqm 11y ago
Many of the rules for the house and senate are specified, very clearly, as well.
Sorry, it isn't a "vague document" nor a "rough guideline". It is very specific on many points. Also, the idea that no one but trained professionals can read or understand if the document is being followed is not only wrong but abhorrent. Certainly, legally the judiciary is to interpret the law for implementation, I don't disagree. But again... we as voters have a right and responsibility to read the rules, to understand the rules, to ascertain if they are being followed and to vote accordingly. The ultimate power, in theory, resides with us, not with "trained professionals". This principal is of extreme importance for our system and seems to be quite often forgotten.
- gnaritas 11y agoI agree that we as voters vote our interests; I don't, and won't agree that the average joe can read and correctly interpret the constitution and they never will. It is a legal document and understanding it requires more than just the words on the page.
- jqm 11y agoThat's a common line from some sectors. It gets repeated a lot. There is probably a reason for that but I don't believe it's objective.
- gnaritas 11y agoIt's common because it's true, whether you choose it accept it or not really doesn't matter, legal documents cannot be understood merely by the words on the page. They exist in a field of precedence and lacking an understanding of the precedence the common person cannot properly understand the intended meaning which whether you see it or not is referencing that precedence.
- jqm 11y agoI'm sorry. You don't need legal training to read and understand most of the Constitution. Much of it is fairly plain and straightforward. Much of the "context" you speak of often comes after the fact. I would suggest rather than trying to beat a worn out point you take half an hour and actually read the document. You can do it... even without a law degree. We can read it.. we can see if it is manifestly being violated, we can vote accordingly. That is the intent. The intent is not that we are governed by an army of lawyers twisting a document into whatever they choose.
- gnaritas 11y agoDon't play superior, you're not; I've read it more than a few times and worked in law enforcement. You think your interpretation is somehow right while ignoring the reality that reasonable people disagree on the meaning of it and denying they even can. You're blinded by your own ideology. We're done.
- jqm 11y agoI'm sorry you think I'm playing superior. That's not my intent. I'm also sorry you feel as you do. I think I've made my point. You seem to be deliberately ignoring it. You appear to have heard something and are parroting it without thinking about it. I don't think that's the best thing to do. And I agree, we are done.