How do you think the Constitution should be interpreted; strictly, so as to protect the right of the states to

Question

How do you think the Constitution should be interpreted; strictly, so as to protect the right of the states to decide controversial matters for themselves, or in an elastic manner, so as to be able to address modern problems?

Answer 1

those who argue for states rights are usually arguing for something outrageous and evil, and they use states rights as code to let each state be as evil as they choose to be.

For example,if each state wanted to have slavery, then it would be up to them, or if each state wanted to discriminate against minorities they could.  If each state wanted to have segregation they could.

We are many states but we are one country and one people...all under one constitution.. the major issues should be uniform for the whole country.

Answer 2

Both --- where the text indicates a plain intent, follow that plain intent even if the literal text is more restricted.

Example -- the 1st Amendment protects speech and the press -- but says nothing about TV or the internet. Yet, the clear intent is to protect all communication, even new forms.

Where the text does not indicate a plain intent -- I think the text should be construed against the govt (state or federal) and in favor of the people.

I believe that the "states rights" argument is not as important nowadays, given how diverse and mobile the national population is -- so, I prefer granting the strongest protections to the people, more than either state or federal govt.

Answer 3

It shouldn't be interpreted at all---!

This document was written`by a forefather who was more

preoccupied with getting home to engage in forep---

with one his slaves ----

And endorsed by delegates who were anxious to go someplace where there was air conditioning ----

which didn't exist---nor did TV,or Movies,or

Automobiles or Airplanes or most of the things

that dominate our lives !!

None of them could get elected to Dogcatcher

today ?

My first questions if I met one of them today ?

"What do you know about anything in today's

world?     and---

Why should I listen to you ?

And what's this Fairy Tale about

"all men being created equal ?"

And my neighbor raises Pit Bulls and carries

an AK-47 in his car----says you guarantee him

that right ! And what's a Musket ? --oh-u -know that !--

So what do you know about Enron and "pre-

emptive wars and WMDs and Terrorists ( No--

they don't wear Redcoats? ")

And did you consider Global Warming and

No-bid Government Contracts ?

And for that matter what do you know about

Lobbyists and guys like Gonzales and torture?

I know you know about "Taxation without Representation----

SO DO WE !



And who is Brad Pitt ---Paris Hilton---Britney Spears?""

That's what I'd ask---how about YOU ? Meaning my

vast audience of "Contacts"

DON'T INTERPRET IT ----DUMP IT---AND WRITE

ONE TO FIT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN !!!

Wise old Benjamin Franklin would agree if he were

here----he would even ask to be the

First Signer of the New Constitution !!!!

Answer 4

(Thumbs down for the horribly ignorant answer given by eltoro.)

There are different parts of the Constitution, and they should not all be interpreted "strictly" or "loosely." In the words of Prof. John Hart Ely, "Constitutional provisions exist on a spectrum, ranging from the relatively specific to the extremely open-textured."

Some parts of the Constitution are addressed to the issue of describing the powers of Congress, the federal legislature. Those parts of the Constitution have been interpreted quite "loosely" for a long time, and only in the recent past has there been at least a little bit of "reigning in" on that looseness.

Other parts of the Constitution describe the rights of individuals to be free of government regulation. These parts are primarily known as "the Bill of Rights," which are defined by Judge Learned Hand are the first eight amendments and the 14th. But in regards to interpretting those amendments, there is no all-encompassing guideline on whether to interpret all of those amendments "loosely" or "strictly."

Here are some of my own previous discussions about interpretting the Constitution.

One of my best answers:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

One of my questions:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

.

Answer 5

I think both ways would be ideal, because our society tends to go one way or the other. But the Constituion could never be interpreted strictly. Jefferson himself proved this when he demanded a strict interpretation of the Constitution only to contradict himself by taking advantage of his executive power of treaties, thus making the Louisiana Purchase.

I think that the elastic clause, however, gives the Constitution the power to bend according to time, events, people, and circumstances. Strictly or loosely- the Consitution can be stretched both ways. The modern times of today will be the ancient times of tomorrow.

Answer 6

I think YOU need to read it!

Answer 7

the ability of the states to decide anything was taken away with the death of the Republic with the start of the Great War of Northern Aggression