[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor When the Court takes something in a Constitutional amendment and says "this means this" then they're interpreting the Constitution - which they have no constitutional authority to do.

You're out of your mind. Article III says they can decide cases arising under the Constitution.

Read Tinker v. DesMoines. The government said wearing a black armband to protest a war is not "speech" under the First Amendment. The students said it was. How in the f**k does the Court decide that case, which arises out of a law resolve that case without "interpreting" the Constitution? :rolleyes:

Listen, the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution to determine cases arising under it. They have done this in the past in one of several ways:

1) Looking at the context
2) Looking at contemporaneous writings of the Framers
3) Stare decisis
4) Looking at similar statutes or actions and seeing how they were resolved

and a few other ways. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE METHODS IS "INTERPRETING" THE CONSTITUTION BY ANY REASONABLE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "INTERPRET"

The Constitution which you worship does not contain instructions on how the Courts are to carry out their duties under Article III. Therefore, using YOUR OWN rationale of "only something in the Constitution counts", any method is equally as valid as any other, since none are in the document. Show me a law that says the Court HAS to look at the context of the words or that they CANNOT use stare decisis. The fact that you disagree with some of their methods of determining the meaning of the undefined words in the Constitution, or that their methods result in decisions you don't like, doesn't make them illegal. It makes you mad.

You keep whining that the words have clear meanings. If they have clear meanings, how can we disagree over them? And if we disagree, how does the Court settle the disagreement without interpreting the Constitution? The process of interpreting includes your preferred method of originalist doctrine.

Tinker v. DesMoines - "speech"
Lochner v. NY - "interstate commerce"
Springer v. US - "direct tax"

Just three of the thousands of cases wherein the Court had to resolve a difference between two parties - one of them usually a government - over what one undefined word or phrase in the Constitution means. To resolve this requires interpreting - or whatever word you want to call it that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

What part of the distinction between interpreting the Constitution and interpreting laws passed by Congress or by other legislatures do you not understand?

Show me a difference in the Constitutional powers of the Court.
Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, "
The Constitution treats their power to examine either in EXACTLY the same way, so you cannot possibly argue that the Court has the power to interpret one but not the other.

No, the difference is in whether a Court is interpreting a law that was passed or is interpreting the Constitution.

Quote by: Chancellor I'm really surprised that Tivo doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between interpreting laws passed by Congress or other legislatures and interpreting the Constitution.

According to the holy document itself, there is no difference whatsoever. Or are you interpreting a difference... :rolleyes:

I'm "really surprised" you "write decisions" for judges as you claim - Your fundamental lack of understanding regarding the court system should disqualify you from any job within 10 miles of a courthouse.