4 ms·
However, even if you read the Constitution and attempt to do apply what it "does say", you still need to interpret it, which is often ambiguous.
by yladiz 4y ago
However, even if you read the Constitution and attempt to do apply what it "does say", you still need to interpret it, which is often ambiguous.
- nitsky 4y agoYes, it's ambiguous and there are no good answers. Conservative justices say "unless the Constitution says it plainly, it's a no". Liberal justices say, "even if the Constitution doesn't say it plainly, they kinda imply it, so it's a yes".
- kemayo 4y agoI do find it amusing (-ly hypocritical) that the big exception to this conservative position is the role of the Supreme Court itself. The entire concept of "judicial review" which is being employed here to allow the justices to strike down laws which they feel are outside the constitution is, famously, not a thing explicitly described in the constitution. Rather it's the very height of "well, it kinda implies we can do that". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison