Interesting claim about the Texas State Constitution
A few years back Texas adopted the following amendment to Article 1 (The Bill of Rights) of its State Constitution:
Sec. 32. MARRIAGE ( Read more... )
Sec. 32. MARRIAGE ( Read more... )
It falls to judges to hold people to their words, because, as you rightly said, one is morally obligated to live by what was agreed upon in writing. And this means that judges must necessarily make sense of the agreement and look at whatever evidence is relevant to their rulings.
Intent is not relevant so long as the plain meaning admits of only one reasonable interpretation. Laws (and contracts a.k.a. private laws) are sometimes so poorly expressed in words that they admit of more than one reasonable interpretation. As I wrote above, one considers evidence of intent when the plain meaning is not clear.
Re: Sec. 2
In the final analysis, Sec. 2 is not what allows the people to alter their government. That is an inalienable right. Sec. 2 merely affirms it. The people are sovereign and may at their will change the constitution as they see fit. Hence Sec. 23 is no absolute barrier to change.
There is also the fact pointed out by Thomas Jefferson that the people a generation removed from the establishment of a constitution are not the same people who made the agreement. I am not saying that individuals can ignore the constitution, but that the people of today are sovereign and, if they have the will, may establish any constitution that they see fit to establish.
Re: impeachment
Your opinion is that blow jobs are not high crimes or misdemeanors, but that perjury is. Fine. But what matters is the opinion of the House. Ford's statement was well illustrated by the vote on Clinton's impeachment. What counted as high crimes and misdemeanors depended pretty much exactly upon which political party the voter belonged to.
Reply
Leave a comment