Interpretation. Laws, rules, contracts, vows are all subject to interpretation. Even when it seems straight forward such as... "shall not be infringed", there are always those who will differ in it's meaning. For some they will decide on a meaning that best suites the circumstance of the present day. Others will base it's meaning on when it was written. To me, contracts have to be enforced based on original intent or they are basically worthless. And our Constitution is a contract between the government and it's people.
Original Intent. What was meant when it was written. Makes sense. But common sense is a rare thing these days it seems.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia visited San Diego last week. I was so disapointed I missed seeing him. This man is on my top 10 list of people I'd like to have a beer with. He is a patriot. Scalia spoke on his approach to interpretation of the Constitution which he labeled “originalist.” Scalia described originalism as looking to what the words of the Constitution originally meant. He asserted that was is the only valid way to approach interpreting its meaning. Looking at the words and asking what those words meant to the people who wrote them. Not feelings... not emotion... and not a living document. He said “Constitutions are supposed to be rigid,” What a concept. I have said it before. If you want to see what a founder looks like, just look at Justice Scalia. I just wish there were more like him on the court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant
ReplyDeletepervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
~Samuel Adams
It is funny because after Scalia's meeting with San Diego State law students, he stayed for a reception featuring Samuel Adams' beer.
ReplyDeleteSon3, the scales on our eyes are falling. We are seeing them for what they are.