From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:33:50 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <1992Oct6.175025.4096@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>> >Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
>> >meaning of the Constitution.
>> 
>> I am saying that one shouldn't and the SC doesn't have a monopoly to
>> interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly in the
>> U.S. Constitution.
>
> [quotes deleted]
>
>It looks like Jefferson and Madison disagree with Greeny.  (there are
>others, if these aren't enough... ;-)

Actually, it looks as though they both *agreed* with me that the SC's
interpretation is the *legal* interpretation (at least in practice),
though they obviously weren't too thrilled that this was, in fact, the case.



>> >Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation
>
>But Madison (a proponet of a strong central government) says that this
>is not "proper"!

Read my statement.  The word "proper" (and note--in quotes) refers to the
*individual's* belief as to what the "proper" interpetation of the Constitution
is.


>BTW, supreme is not capitalized, only Court is capitalized.  The
>capitalization rules look much like modern German.  I suspect that
>a reference to God (pick your god of choice) would be referred to
>as a "Supreme Being", while the SC is the "supreme Court".  I'm sure that
>they would *like to be* the "SUPREME COURT", however....  (god-like in
>origin, and all that... ;-)

I fail to see how this is at all relevant...


>> >of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."
>
>This is reasonable, however.
>
>> >And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
>> >with something to the effect of "IMHO..."
>> 
>> Best would be to use to use both, but to make a point it is IMHO
>> sufficient to say "The Supreme Court says that censoring obscenity is
>> constitutional, while the Constitution itself doesn't prohibit
>> obscenity and thus the prohibition on obscenity is unconstitutional".
>
>I like your notation better, Jyrki.  It's certainly reasonable for a
>Citizen to state, expound, or complain that the Federal government is
>passing laws in excess of their Constitutional powers.  The supreme
>Court's decisions are no more valid than mine.

In your philosphical interpretation, they may not be any more valid than
your own.  As a practical matter, the SC interpretation is far more
legally binding than your own, however.

Furthermore, you can choose to use whatever notation you like.  But if you want
the rest of the 99% of the world to understand what you mean, you should
state (or otherwise make clear) that it is *your* interpretation, and not the
SC's, to which you are refering.

You can also choose to define "Constitution" to mean those small pebbles
used to pave roads--since Webster's interpretation is no more valid than
yours.  To the vast majority of the english-speaking world, however, you will
be completely misunderstood (unless you explicitly qualify your use of
"Constitution" with your own definition).

Likewise, to the vast majority of the world, an unqualified remark about the
meaning of the US Constitution will suggest that the interpretation of the SC
is being discussed.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution