The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words...
Ryzel wrote:Actually, can someone clarify for me whether a Supreme Court justice's job is to interpret the Constitution based off of his/her own opinion of what he/she thinks of current society, or to interpret the Constitution based off of how he/she believes the Founding Fathers meant it to be interpreted?
unwichtig wrote:I honestly don't understand why someone would try to read the Constitution through a 200+ year old lens and then apply it to today's society, but I'm not very educated on the issue and it's the subject of what I assume to be a majority of controversial Supreme Court decisions.
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 wrote:As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest