[detbuch]

To Spence:

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?
Your "yes" answer is incorrect. The Constitution is not a list of opinions. It is the blueprint by which we are governed. Some judges may treat it as someone else's opinion which can be over-ruled by their own. This is called judicial activism. Such activism is outside of the blueprint and was not intended. Such activism is a usurpation of powers intended for other branches of government. It not only usurps those powers, it destroys the intended balance of power, making the Court THE governing branch, rather than the branch that checks the others against unconstitutional (legal) legislation.

Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered?
Your "yes" answer is inappropriate. Each judicial opinion cannot be correct in its own special way. It can only be correct if it follows the Constitution. It cannot, appropriately, change or abrogate the Constitution. It sometimes happens that the majority votes in contradistinction to the Constitution. This creates Constitutional change by judicial activism, which is incorrect. Constitutional change is only supposed to occur by ammendment or Constitutional Convention. Nor is it supposed to occur by Case Law precedent. If Legal Cases were decided in accordance with the Constitution, they would not invoke change. It is bad or Constitutionally incorrectly decided decisions that lead to bad or incorrect precedent that in turn lead to unconstitutional judicial decisions.

Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes?
Your "yes" answer is, again, incorrect. The original meanings of the words that comprise the Constitution remain the same. New connotations and denotations of words spelled the same as those in the Constitution do not change or replace them in Court adjudication. The original meanings still pertain. Nor do the political, philosophical, social, or economic opinions of new regimes allow the Court to change the Constitution in order suit these whims.

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?[/QUOTE]

Your "yes" answer to this last portion is partially correct. The Constitution was intended to be easily understood by all. The language was not intended to be poured over, disected, parsed, and interpreted in differing ways.