quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Check your Con Law history. Historically, the section you put forth has never had the force you think it does.
Lyrhawn, You are being surprisingly one sided in your representation. There have been prominent people on both sides of this issue since before the constitution was ratified.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not enough of a Constitutional Scholar to know which section people have used to argue for particular powers. I am however knowledgable enough of history, to know that the idea that the constitution is a document with a clear indisputable meaning to which all honest people must agree, is laughable.
The Founding Fathers were a highly fractious bunch of people and the document they produced was a compromise in just about every way. They had very strong disagreements about the "correct" interpretation of the document. Many of the most contentious issues were left vague, or avoided all together (like secession for example) intentionally because they knew that clarity would make the constitution unratifiable.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. Nowhere did I contradict what you're saying. I specifically commented on one aspect of one section of Article III. You seem to be deriving some sort of larger point from what I'm saying that I never intended, and that I don't think is it all justifiable.
I was talking specifically about SCOTUS interpretations of Constitutional power and the justification regarding judicial review.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
