On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:01:02 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> This, of course, would imply actually knowing what is in the
> constitution,
> which is kind of hard, when you get senators claiming things are in it
> that are not, other things are not, which are, and confusing it with
> other documents (declaration of independence, being one, though.. I
> think there was one moron suggesting that the Magna Carta was a founding
> document, if not actually part of the constitution a while back too.)

Yep.

Interpreting the constitution is easy, but applying it isn't easy in all 
cases.  I disagree with SCOTUS about the meaning of the second amendment, 
for example - IMHO it starts with the reason why the right to bear arms 
shall not be infringed (because a well armed militia is necessary), and 
the current interpretations take the second part but throw out (again, 
IMHO) the first.

On the flip side, the courts tend to agree about the establishment 
clause, but many religious individuals (generally those who want prayer 
in schools, public government meetings, etc) seem to feel very strongly 
that it doesn't apply to Christianity.  And they're wrong (and the courts 
agree on that in general).

Jim

Post a reply to this message