why don't you come over here and divide my state's sovereignty?

[pemberleya]

am totally hating constitutional law. it's. so. annoying. they act like it's a real substantive class, but it's just philosophy. speculative history. what do we think the framers had in mind when they wrote this stuff? i don't care. not a bit. what they had in mind was never important. what is important is what they wrote and the language the

Comments

[pythonmont]

totally with ya on the "god damn i hate philosophy" train. it might be the chemist in us (ha! you know that degree you plowed through and hated enough to forget about? well it didn't forget about you!), but there's a lot to be said for "well this is what is written, hence this is what IS."

however, there is something to be said for "letter of the law vs. spirit." but, and internet lawyers correct me if i'm wrong, it always seems like legalese is written so specifically to account for just about any and every such contingency.

besides, if we're interpreting constitutional law in the way it was intended at the time of conception, then shouldn't we all agree that the "right to bear arms" is in fact intended for self-defense in a time when there was little-to-no police force to speak of? and that we were always in danger of losing our prize pig, persephone, to the hands of looters from two towns over? or, since our electoral college was designed on the basis that blacks were something like 9/16 of a person, so that some states had more power than others, shouldn't we be going back to a purely popular vote? besides, as you said, we interpret law based more on precident and modern interpretation (roe v. wade, anyone?) than anything else.