How should the constitution be interpreted?

[Atreus21]

I've never taken a course in anything about the constitution, but I'm going to go with what I assume is common sense. There are 1 of 2 options.

1. You can interpret it strictly.
2. You can interpret it according to what you think the intent of the wording was, and with an aim to help it conform to changes brought about by modernity.

On strict interpretation, I can think of some problems. It lends itself to a paralyzing effect on any legislation that doesn't find it's explicit justification somewhere within the constitution. As much as I would like to say that's just fine with me, I'm willing to concede that there are times when the government must be able to act.

On the second interpretation, as I'm sure most of you could guess, I have a much greater objection. To the extent that the judiciary is able to interpret "meaning" and "intent" into a document, it is able to essentially negate two things: 1.) the binding nature of the document, and 2.) the idea that there ever needs to be a constitutional amendment. This is compounded by an excessive reliance on precedent. (With respect to reliance on precedent, I have a vague recollection that the principal difference between common law and civil law is that one relies on precedent, the other on a code. Can't remember.)

Given the two options, assuming there's no middle ground, I choose the strict interpretation.

That's a general description of my position. Gimme yours.

 

[fskimospy]

What do you mean by 'strict interpretation'? You have to be more clear than that. Do you mean the literal wording and nothing else?

 

[Atreus21]

What do you mean by 'strict interpretation'? You have to be more clear than that. Do you mean the literal wording and nothing else?

Well yes. Anything else is within the range of option 2.

For example. The establishment clause sez that Congress shall make no law yadda yadda yadda. Not state governments. Not the president. Not school boards. Congress.

It occurs to me that option 1 can't really be called interpretation at all, so my thread title is kind of misleading. To interpret means to glean the meaning of something, and I'm essentially limiting option 1 to reading what's on the page and going no further.

 

[child of wonder]

We can't be 100% strict with our interpretation of the Constitution. Otherwise, anything the founders failed to mention or even imagine is fair game simply because it isn't included. We have to be aware of the spirit of the document as well and have careful debate as to how that spirit applies to areas the Constitution fails to address.

Now, the things that the Constitution does explicitly address should be adhered to as printed unless we find reason to amend it.

 

[Anarchist420]

It should be interpreted as something that needs to be rescinded and replaced with a reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation.

It simply didn't place any limits on centralization of power.

 

[fskimospy]

Well yes. Anything else is within the range of option 2.

I will use an example from another thread:

The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It gives no exceptions for this. By that logic, if a police officer sees you shoot five people he's not allowed to take your gun away, because then the government would be infringing on your right to bear arms. Furthermore, he couldn't even arrest you before you were convicted, as liberty can only be removed by due process through the judicial system.

By strictly interpreting the Constitution to only permit exactly what it says, we have no choice but to allow armed murderers to roam the street until we conclude a jury trial. Clearly this is an absurd result.

It is literally impossible to use the Constitution as a governing document by only using the exact words on the page. It must in fact be interpreted and bent to the situation at hand. Option 2 is in fact the only viable option.

 

[soulcougher73]

I would probably favor number 2 more just for the fact i think our country needs flexablity as times change. Things that made sense back then may not make sense in todays world. I view it more as a living document meaning amendments can be added or taken away if the country is in favor of them.

 

[Atreus21]

I will use an example from another thread:

The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It gives no exceptions for this. By that logic, if a police officer sees you shoot five people he's not allowed to take your gun away, because then the government would be infringing on your right to bear arms. Furthermore, he couldn't even arrest you before you were convicted, as liberty can only be removed by due process through the judicial system.

By strictly interpreting the Constitution to only permit exactly what it says, we have no choice but to allow armed murderers to roam the street until we conclude a jury trial. Clearly this is an absurd result.

It is literally impossible to use the Constitution as a governing document by only using the exact words on the page. It must in fact be interpreted and bent to the situation at hand. Option 2 is in fact the only viable option.

I don't understand why we can't amend the constitution to suit our needs instead of leaving everything at the mercy of the SCOTUS, hoping that Kennedy wakes up on whatever side of the bed is sympathetic to our desires.

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't understand why we can't amend the constitution to suit our needs instead of leaving everything at the mercy of the SCOTUS, hoping that Kennedy wakes up on whatever side of the bed is sympathetic to our desires.

But you OP says you want a strict interpretation. Which is it? Whatever suits your desires at the time?

 

[Atreus21]

It should be interpreted as something that needs to be rescinded and replaced with a reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation.

From what I remember of 4th grade social studies, the Articles of Confederation made it impossible for the government to act.

 

[Anarchist420]

I will use an example from another thread:

The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It gives no exceptions for this. By that logic, if a police officer sees you shoot five people he's not allowed to take your gun away, because then the government would be infringing on your right to bear arms. Furthermore, he couldn't even arrest you before you were convicted, as liberty can only be removed by due process through the judicial system.

By strictly interpreting the Constitution to only permit exactly what it says, we have no choice but to allow armed murderers to roam the street until we conclude a jury trial. Clearly this is an absurd result.

It is literally impossible to use the Constitution as a governing document by only using the exact words on the page. It must in fact be interpreted and bent to the situation at hand. Option 2 is in fact the only viable option.

No it's not.

 

[Anarchist420]

From what I remember of 4th grade social studies, the Articles of Confederation made it impossible for the government to act.

The Continental Army suppressed Shay's Rebellion so you were either taught incorrectly or remembered incorrectly.

 

[Atreus21]

But you OP says you want a strict interpretation. Which is it? Whatever suits your desires at the time?

I do want a strict interpretation. When we find the constitution does not adequately specify or protect something we want specified or protected, we should amend the constitution, not gamble that the SCOTUS might establish it.

 

[pauldun170]

Just to be clear...we ARE including all subsequent amendments right?

Also, does "strict interpretation" mean that we are to ignore all Supreme Court decisions?

I have to ask because just about every person I've met who demands a "strict interpretation" doesn't actually mean strict interpretaions of the constitution.

They are divided into two camps
A. They just want everyone to ignore Supreme Court rulings they personally do not agree with and Amendments that they personally do not agree with.
B. They have never actually read the constitution or follow up amendments (much less history of Supreme Court cases) and have no clue as to what they are talking about. They know the first 4 Amendments and thats it. They usually ramble on about onne or all of the following:
1. Mah guns
2. Mah Money
3. Mah sweet Jesus
4. Libertah

 

[Atreus21]

The Continental Army suppressed Shay's Rebellion so you were either taught incorrectly or remembered incorrectly.

Okay, revision. It made the government almost unable to act.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't understand why we can't amend the constitution to suit our needs instead of leaving everything at the mercy of the SCOTUS, hoping that Kennedy wakes up on whatever side of the bed is sympathetic to our desires.

I think that's a separate question. The first question to come out of this is: Do you believe the writers of the Constitution intended it to prohibit the disarming and arrest of mass murderers? Clearly not. So why would we use their document in a way so contrary to its intention? This should lay bare the fallacy of a literal interpretation of the Constitution. It cannot be done, nor should it be done.

If you were to amend the Constitution to fit out needs in the way that you describe, all you would end up with is federal law being written through the Constitution instead of through statute, which would in effect simply eliminate the Constitution. How do you even define 'infringement'? What constitutes 'due process'? There are thousands if not millions of different situations that the Constitution must be applied to, and it's impossible to make a document that covers them all. It would be chaos.

What we do now is a far more sensible solution, and even the most conservative justices constantly interpret the meaning of the Constitution. While I don't agree with their method of doing it it's a difference of the standards applied, not of whether or not to interpret it.

 

[Atreus21]

Just to be clear...we ARE including all subsequent amendments right?

Yes.

Also, does "strict interpretation" mean that we are to ignore all Supreme Court decisions?

I have to ask because just about every person I've met who demands a "strict interpretation" doesn't actually mean strict interpretaions of the constitution.

For the purposes of this argument, let's not rely on any precedent. Let's suppose we just drafted a brand new constitution.

 

[Jaskalas]

OP, it was never meant to be dumbed down to 'Everything necessary and proper for the general welfare', but that's how tyrannical opportunists wanting to seize power see it today.

It's an entirely false dichotomy to suggest that the federal government must expand, must act in new ways, must continue to seize power from the states and their people. The elite ruling class sitting nice and smug in a capital thousands of miles away ruling over 320 million people IS NOT Democracy. It is NOT freedom or liberty. We betray the very tenant of our constitution today and it is all done under false pretenses.

Who are they to seize power and pretend that only they can act? As if nothing should ever come down to the individual, the city, the county, or the state. If you ask the men in Washington DC today, the vast majority say it all comes down to them. Since when were we Roman Plebs ruled by the Emperor?

No, the only allowance for the federal government is strict interpretation. Flexibility is to be left to the people, specifically the states.

 

[Ausm]

Not by Religious Zealots would be a great start...

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, revision. It made the government almost unable to act.

What our good friend Anarchist420 of course fails to mention is that the inadequacy of the federal government in dealing with Shay's Rebellion was one of the reasons why the people at the time pushed to abandon the Articles of Confederation as useless and push for the Constitution to be adopted.

But then again, history isn't exactly his strong suit.

 

[Atreus21]

I think that's a separate question. The first question to come out of this is: Do you believe the writers of the Constitution intended it to prohibit the disarming and arrest of mass murderers? Clearly not. So why would we use their document in a way so contrary to its intention? This should lay bare the fallacy of a literal interpretation of the Constitution. It cannot be done, nor should it be done.

If you were to amend the Constitution to fit out needs in the way that you describe, all you would end up with is federal law being written through the Constitution instead of through statute, which would in effect simply eliminate the Constitution. How do you even define 'infringement'? What constitutes 'due process'? There are thousands if not millions of different situations that the Constitution must be applied to, and it's impossible to make a document that covers them all. It would be chaos.

What we do now is a far more sensible solution, and even the most conservative justices constantly interpret the meaning of the Constitution. While I don't agree with their method of doing it it's a difference of the standards applied, not of whether or not to interpret it.

I'd agree with what you said here, but I still think that there may as well not be a constitution if we're going to allow the SCOTUS to "interpret" into it whatever standards please their political disposition.

I mean, when you look at Douglas' opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, about how the right to privacy was to be found by "penumbras" and "emanations" from other parts of the constitution, you start to think, "This is f'ing retarded. Just how hard are they looking for this protection?"

I guess we have two options ultimately. Either we can have a strict standard of interpretation, and as you say treat the constitution as if it doesn't exist, or we can have an interpretative standard, and as I said treat the constitution as if it doesn't exist.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd agree with what you said here, but I still think that there may as well not be a constitution if we're going to allow the SCOTUS to "interpret" into it whatever standards please their political disposition.

What is that way then? Do you agree that we cannot write the Constitution to cover all the situations that might come up? If that's the case, how can we help but interpret it?

 

[pauldun170]

Yes.



For the purposes of this argument, let's not rely on any precedent. Let's suppose we just drafted a brand new constitution.

Ok...thats actually harder than it looks because the way a lot of our laws are written, there are plenty of opportunities for our own personal interpretation to be shaped by precedent and not purely on the wording.

(Looks at schedule for the day...wonders if time available to do a complete review)

Another tough part is dealing with context and dealing with the fact that societal changes change the rose colored glasses. I can be gung-ho on strict interpretation of some things but others...it would require a level of naivety\stupidity that I just cannot fake on a moments notice.

 

[Atreus21]

What is that way then? Do you agree that we cannot write the Constitution to cover all the situations that might come up? If that's the case, how can we help but interpret it?

I have to think about that.

 

[blankslate]

We can't be 100% strict with our interpretation of the Constitution. Otherwise, anything the founders failed to mention or even imagine is fair game simply because it isn't included. We have to be aware of the spirit of the document as well and have careful debate as to how that spirit applies to areas the Constitution fails to address.

Now, the things that the Constitution does explicitly address should be adhered to as printed unless we find reason to amend it.

I pretty much agree with this. The writers of the Constitution had a definite idea of how they wanted to set up the government but they also realized that society would change and allowed a mechanism to amend the Constitution. They also made it extremely difficult to pass an amendment, which I think was very wise.

I think that there has to be a middle ground between strict letter of the Constitution interpretation and spirit of what the founding father's intended. Because writers were people and didn't always agree on everything that should be in the Constitution. Additionally they couldn't predict every situation that would crop up that the Constitution might have authority over.