Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Why didn't you ask JohnnyD why he thinks striking down the DC and the Chicago bans are Constitutionally corrrect choices? And "if that's really the case" how would you characterize the minority opinion? Were the minority votes also Constitutionally correct? Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view? Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered? Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes? Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?
|
Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution are interpretative... probably why few major decisions are voted 9-0.
I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as Unconstitutional.
The Constitution is a document which needs to be interpreted. I believe our Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in some aspects to preserve the documents longevity and legitimacy as the country developed and changed.
If this were not the case, everything within the Constitution would have been written in clear, well-articulated detail. Should that have happened, the Constitution would not have stood up to the test of time as effectively as it has and it would now be an outdated, ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes.