How to interpret the Constitution
Stanley Fish, former head of the English department at Duke University, and university professor of law at Florida International University, in an Op-Ed contribution in the New York Times, discusses interpreting the Constitution. In it, he carefully argues for and against the various methods of interpretation. Here's a key paragraph:And that is why the only coherent answer to the question "What does the Constitution mean?" is that the Constitution means what its authors intended it to mean. The alternative answers just don't work: the Constitution can't mean what the text alone says because there is no text alone [because intent came first]; and it can't mean what present-day society needs and wants it to mean because any meaning arrived at under that imperative will not be the Constitution's.
posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 8:07 AM
2 Comments:
...but Paul, aren't we talking about the differences between two sides and their specific definitions of interpretation (i.e., the "secular liberals" and "conservative Christians"). I think it almost impossible to have an authentic conversation concerning the "interpretation" of any historical document with a group of well-meaning folks who interpret biblical literature in the manner they do. It is almost humorous to hear the Christian conservative supporters of conservative Supreme Court Justices scream "interpretation," IMHO. I just hope their justices don't practice their cherished brand of "selective interpretation."
Shawn,
I don't think that everyone can easily be put in the either secular liberal or conservative Christian box. The original article which I cited in this post has a good explanation of various flavors of constitutional interpretation, none of which necessarily correspond with religious orientation. I expect they do relate to classic conservative vs liberal politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home