Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Damn. Good point. Madison and Jefferson had to attack the unconstitutionality with the available tools, which was state nullification..
|
There was talk of judicial review at the time of adoption, but it wasn't clear how seriously anyone took it. State nullification was the same - much discussed, but somewhat timidly defended.
The point still is that those words on the page are quite difficult to interpret. Knowing what it means that Congress shall make no law infringing freedom of the press requires the definition of the very inscrutable terms "freedom", "press", and "infringe", as well as difficulties figuring out whether this is only a limitation on Congress (so the President by executive order can still declare martial law, suspend habeus corpus, and jail his opponents?) or all the ancilary parts of the government.
Getting into this discussion shows that there was also a need for a court to interpret the idea of judicial review, not clearly spelled out in the constitution, and proper redress for constitutional breaches.
This is why I view the idea that we should interpret the Constitution based on a "close reading" to be a bunch of hogwash.
To continue asking the conundrums, Mr. Bilmore, tell me, if we are going to just read the words in the constitution, does the Supreme Court even get to interpret the constitution? Remember, he decides that case by first deciding that he has no jurisdiction in the matter and then issuing this sweeping dictum that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution.
