“In law, explanation and understanding of a specific body of words. The language of law can be interpreted in many ways...”
OK, that’s as simple as it gets. So why doesn’t the Radical Right get it? There is a move afoot to demonize those who believe that the Constitution was written to be a living document; one that can be interpreted in many ways. Here are some basics that seem to be forgotten. We do not know exactly what was in the minds of those who wrote and approved of the Constitution. We can’t ask any of them. So we must interpret.
Interpretation is risky business…and should be approached with an eye towards moderation.
Strict or loose, interpretation is still, by definition, an inexact science. And just because Thomas or Scalia say it’s so…doesn’t make it true.
Interpreting is just as you said "explanation" not rewritting. If you want to explain something I said, that is a far cry from putting words in my mouth. : )
ReplyDeleteObviously something is sticking in your craw in regards to Interpretation...Who interpreted what and when? And why was it wrong?
ReplyDeleteThe "you" was meant in the royal sense. As I reread my post I see where you might have taken it as an accusation that Steve misquoted Dennis, that is not what I meant.
ReplyDeleteIt regards constitutional rewritting by the judiciary, words have been put in the "mouths" of the framers. Their words have not been "explained," they have been rewritten.
Actually...I was simply curious as to who, what and when. I thought you would have an example of re-writing.
ReplyDelete