Quote:
|
Quote by: osborn I want to debate law, rights and Constitutional issues, not philosophy issues, at least in THIS thread. |
the thing about any set of laws is that they're always subject to rhetorical arguments. and the thing about the constitution was that it was not soley influenced by philosophical ideals - it was heavily influenced by public opinion. certain bits of language were either omitted or watered down because certain states would have opposed it.
these two pieces - the timeless use of rhetoric plus the fact that the constitution itself was subjected to public opinion - are solid reasons why perceptions of the document's language have evolved (or devolved depending on your pov) over the years.
the legislature makes certain decisions based on public interest. those decisions could be supported by the majority of the public, or by a small handful of elite interests.. nevertheless, the legislature's primary concern has always been to represent their constituents (of course, money pollutes this - but does not eliminate it).. and depending on the issue, the public may hold their own interests higher than certain stipulations/limitations stated in the constitution. many americans want universal healthcare, for example - even though the constitution makes no mention of healthcare being a function of the federal government (i wonder if its writers would've even thought of it in their omission).
when the legislature pushes something through that has strong support, the supreme court has repeatedly taken public sentiment into account. MANY rulings have taken public opinion into consideration in fact. (this is in line with the fact that the constitution itself factored in public opinion.)
and the most important point - technically, nothing is unconstitional unless the supreme court rules as such. this is spelled out clearly in the constitution and this truth really can't be refuted. if you're looking for a purely legal answer, that's it. people who oppose certain pieces of legislation use the timeless art of rhetoric to argue their case, but the decision lies with the supreme court.
i certainly support many policies/laws that do conflict with the constitution's verbage.. it just so happens, though, that all of these policies (to the best of my knowledge) have not been ruled as being unconstitutional - therefore they ARE constitutional. in some other cases, such as fiat, the court has ruled in favor of fiat.
and just one more point on public opinion (which is a huge factor in all policy decisions and supreme court rulings)... peoples' mentalities can change over time. it can be argued that forcing the public to live with a rigidly perceived constitution, which would prohibit all sorts of federal initiatives, would limit their freedom. there are instances where the best decisions are not necessarily constitutional. a shining example of that was the louisianna purchase. it can be easily argued that the purchase wasn't constitutional, but since it was such an incredibly good bargain, nobody was about to push the issue in the courts.