Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
Actually he does because that's what the constitution says. The constitution is not the bible, it is in fact VERY clear in it's instructions. As he pointed out, it's supposed to restrict all branches of government but how can it when said branches can make it mean whatever they want to? The rule of law must not be subject to whims. Even in the case of jury nullification, majority rule still doesn't win the day. It must be unanimous. Not perfect? Sure but what is?
|
If that's what it says, why does he have to argue for specific qualifications of terms and where are his grounds to deny specific qualifications of terms for others? He settles on the standard of contemporary definition, but that is basically the same as arguing intent ("what did they mean by this word?"), which he denies as problematic. It seems you agree with his interpretation, but that does not necessarily make it what the constitution says. It does grant powers and restrictions to government, but it is debatable what the powers are.
It's a good thing that my argument remains that the rule of law is not subject to whims, but rather it establishes a system to explain the its own meaning should all other means fail or find conflict, courts. To deny that is to deny the functionality of constitutional law.