|
|
|
|
|
by cortesoft
4693 days ago
|
|
The idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the people sounds like a good idea; however, how exactly would that work in practice? We obviously can't just let each individual interpret it how they see fit, or it becomes effectively meaningless. It would be equally impossible for each Constitutional question to be 'voted' on by the people. Is there a way I am missing? It seems the courts are the only logical choice to interpret the Constitution. |
|
The people individually would decide what the Constitution means, and they would -- having made those decisions -- individually and collectively act to hold incumbent officials and candidates accountable to those interpretations through voting, public advocacy, protests, and, in extreme cases, direct action.
> We obviously can't just let each individual interpret it how they see fit
Not only can we, but we really have no other choice; whether we like it or not, each individual will do that, even if "how they see fit" is to delegate the interpretation to some individual authority, or the collective wisdom of the rest of the population.