[samfoo]

Because the world is a complicated place where a single (short) document is unlikely to fairly represent anything other than guiding principles. Having guiding principles is hugely important and valuable, just as giving people the leeway to make judgement calls on those principles is. Justice shouldn't be black and white.

[smokeyj]

If constitutionality can't be deduced by the constitution, then what deduces it? The opinion of some judges?

If our fate is in the hands of a few judges (it is), doesn't this void our "democratic principles"?

I can't help but feel our understanding of government isn't much more than catch phrases and sentiment. Patriotism, we the people, one nation under god, the greater good, public servants, all total bs. If we criticized the processes of government like we did start-ups (such as the costs of value added), we'd be a whole lot wealthier. /rant

[Locke1689]

Your rant is misguided and childish. The law is dynamic because it must be applied in areas where no prior written text has a straightforward conclusion.

A simple example is wiretapping laws. Because of historical stare decisis interpretations of the Constitution, it is ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to wiretap a citizen without a court order. Nowhere in the Constitution is this protection written -- it required the application of the spirit of the document to the 20th century by the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, we don't need to bicker about this because you seem to hold the Constitution as the preeminent law of the land. Since the Constitution is correct by definition (according to you) and it gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over its interpretation, the Supreme Court is also correct by definition.

[smokeyj]

> you seem to hold the Constitution as the preeminent law of the land

To the contrary, my point is this document is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. So, who interprets it? The judges of course! The very people this document is supposed to protect me from. Seems a bit circular. Fast forward to year 2012, and judges say it's OK to seize domain names. How can the constitution defend my right to free speech and also defend the government's right to seize domains?

[Locke1689]

Fast forward to year 2012, and judges say it's OK to seize domain names.

Then it's Constitutional by definition. Congress, however, can pass a law amending the Constitution to prohibit the seizure of domain names. Then it's no longer Constitutional. Do they not teach the three branches of government or checks and balances in middle school anymore?

[chronomex]

Congress cannot amend the constitution as easily as it can pass a law. The States have to agree to it as well.

[Locke1689]

Yeah. It's the Constitution. It's supposed to be hard to change.

[yoyar]

yes, who watches the watchers?

[ugh]

Ever heard of separation of powers? Three branches of government?

[smokeyj]

Remind me, who was declaring war reserved for?

[shasta]

"and it gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over its interpretation"

[citation needed]

[Locke1689]

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

[shasta]

Right. Where's the bit about determining the constitutionality of laws? It's not spelled out

[Locke1689]

Just read Marbury v. Madison. I have no more time for a 5th grade civics lesson.

[nika]

You called him misguided and childish. You lose the argument.

[nika]

I don't think anyone denies that there are areas where the constitution is not sufficiently detailed. However, the constitution still says what it says, and many actions that are considered "legal" today do not fall into the areas of constitutional vagueness, but are simply laws that violate the constitution that have never been sufficiently challenged.

The constitution is pretty black and white, and this is a good thing, because it means you can tell what is set out by it, and what is up to the legislature.

All the areas where the constitution enumerated powers it gave the legislature a free hand to determine what is right.

Thus for the areas that the constitution does address, it is pretty black and white and it is meant to be enforced by the people.

... and it really isn't hard to understand, nor does it require much interpretation. Just careful reading.