if the Supreme Court can simply reinterpret the meaning of words based on current context, it means that prior decisions, legislation, and even the Bill of Rights can simply be handwaved away.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (12).

[–] • 2 pts

They cannot. This is a common argument. It is called amendment by re-definition. The courts cannot redefine terms/words of the Constitution to make alternative interpretations. That's why they use Bouvier's Legal Dictionary 1865 edition.

Constitutionality is based on forefathers intent, not current uses of old words.

link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

My point still stands.

We have the rule of law, which cannot be translated into new interpretations of the law.

Or

The courts doing the translating of constitutional language aren't going to support new defintions of old words such that the people in positions of power, authority, or propaganda will lose those things or be held accountable for abusing those things.

You are correct to say we've moved away from #1 but it only can move toward #2. Never toward justice.

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 2 pts

[–] • 0 pt

Who's gonna stop them?

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

I made a comment toward your post to another person taking a similar position. See above.

parent
link