Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Fern
Regarding your comment about using a "common sence" approach to the interpretation & understanding of law.
For more than 20 years I have been a professional in (and student of) tax law. It is not uncommon for us to have to go back to the Constitution or the floor debates therefrom to adequently determine some matter of law, not to mention the constant need to read case law. My point being that all the years I've found the better law professional to adopt a "common sense" approach as part of their efforts in interpretation of law.
I've found it's the younger inexperienced lawyers just out of college who disdain such an approach, and that coupled with recent education and no experience makes them know "just enough to be dangerous".
Fern
I made no comment about using common sense to interpret the law in general, or that one should not attempt a natural reading of any document, including the Constitution. However you, of all people, should know by now that a purely common-sense or plain-text approach to the Constitution doesn't have a prayer of reaching a correct result. Originalist or non-originalist, a correct reading of the Constitution depends on a knowledge of terms of art, legislative history, etc. In fact I don't remember ever reading a Supreme Court opinion on the Constitution that just relied on common sense or policy alone. And neither does
Parker, delving into numerous historical treatises to establish legislative intent, speaking of terms of art and canons of construction, etc. ...
I'm sorry, but despite your purported tax-law knowledge, I really don't consider you an expert here if you are seriously advocating a reading of the Constitution, a document famous for vagueness and multiplicity of meaning written hundreds of years ago, based only on the common sense of Internet blatherskites eager to prop up their views without any actual justification. I am fairly sure that you are less skilled than I in formal argumentation, too, if the best you can do is rely on your years of experience as authority. I've found that this is a dishonest tactic used by frustrated people to discount the arguments of others without having to do any work.
Are you a lawyer, or paralegal, or student, or what?