I didn’t ask you what the words say; anyone can read them. I asked you why you believe, based on the historical evidence, that the Constitution isn’t supposed to be interpreted by our courts.
I’m interested in this part. Obviously some interpretation is going to happen, but would like to know the law that supports it. Also what (if anything) limits “interpretation” from allowing a 180 degree opposite to what is written to occur.
Asking more generally, not about going into a building I don’t strictly need to.
You did not. This is the answer of someone who has lost the argument and knows it, but refuses to admit it. The door is that way; kindly let yourself out.
All three. The people. Do you know what a Constitutional Republic is? Do you realize the American government is a government of servants? That some of them have forgotten that changes nothing.
Of the people, by the people, and for the people still stands:
>Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
>Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
>But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
You are a person, not the people. I disagree with you on what the Constitution says. Luckily, The Constitution outlines how to resolve that dispute. [0]
> ... Abraham Lincoln November 19, 1863
Abraham Lincoln was four score and seven years late to the founding, I'm not sure what his opinion has to do with it.
As an attorney, I can tell you that a naive reading of words in the Constitution is not how law is decided.
Believe it or not, I don't care what authoritarians feel about the 4th amendment that was designed to be read and interpreted free of the courts.
I suppose you tell cops at a traffic stop that you don't need a license plate because you're an individual not engaging in commerce.
And how, exactly, are you certain of this intended design?
"shall not be violated" leaves no loopholes. Just like the second amendment:
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated" do not leave loopholes. It's quite clear.
I didn’t ask you what the words say; anyone can read them. I asked you why you believe, based on the historical evidence, that the Constitution isn’t supposed to be interpreted by our courts.
> interpreted by our courts.
I’m interested in this part. Obviously some interpretation is going to happen, but would like to know the law that supports it. Also what (if anything) limits “interpretation” from allowing a 180 degree opposite to what is written to occur.
Asking more generally, not about going into a building I don’t strictly need to.
I answered your question. Your failure of comprehension is not my problem.
You did not. This is the answer of someone who has lost the argument and knows it, but refuses to admit it. The door is that way; kindly let yourself out.
Since you're pretending to be a lawyer and losing an argument I'll highlight the part that answers the question:
>"shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated" do not leave loopholes. It's quite clear.
There's a branch of government who's job is to write laws, who's job is to interpret laws and one who's job is to enforce laws.
Which one are you?
All three. The people. Do you know what a Constitutional Republic is? Do you realize the American government is a government of servants? That some of them have forgotten that changes nothing.
Of the people, by the people, and for the people still stands:
>Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
>Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
>But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln November 19, 1863
You are a person, not the people. I disagree with you on what the Constitution says. Luckily, The Constitution outlines how to resolve that dispute. [0]
> ... Abraham Lincoln November 19, 1863
Abraham Lincoln was four score and seven years late to the founding, I'm not sure what his opinion has to do with it.
[0]https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...
This is actually incorrect; Article III does not establish judicial review. Judicial review was established by Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
I am not pretending to be a lawyer and will happily send you my bona fides. Feel free to email me at otterley at otterley dot org.
The Fourth Amendment only applies to places flying a flag with gold fringes