Replies

There is a theory I have had for a long time regarding any ambiguous wording in the Constitution and up until the impeachment trial I could not come up with any legal support for it. Dershowitz touched on it during his testimony and I about had kittens upon hearing it. Not sure how strongly the rule is accepted with regards to Constitutional Law, but the term was Lenity.

The rule of lenity is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner most favorable to the defendant. (From Wikipedia)

Perhaps there is a Constitutional Law version of this but my theory has always been that any ambiguity should be interpreted in the broadest/narrowest interpretation possible so long as it benefits/protects its citizens with the most Liberty. In general, the Constitution was written to limit government and it mostly outlines what the government can and can't do. For some aspects of the writing, like the second amendment, the reasons it states “shall not be infringed” is directed as a warning to not interfere and is why it doesn't go deeper into reasons as to why. It's clearly restricted — yet, ambiguity around it still exists.

In the case of Natural Born Citizen, I think it should be the narrowest interpretation (the stricter the better) because it protects Liberty of the citizenry from divided allegiances in a candidate who might not hold their best interests when carrying out the duties as their President (as we just witnessed the consequences of with the Kenyesian Usurper [FU NP]).

However, in the case of the 2nd amendment with Shall Not Be Infringed, then I believe the broadest interpretation should apply as that provides the most Liberty to the citizens that exercise it daily in defense of their lives, their family's lives, their livelihood, and our nation's livelihood.

Probably won't go anywhere, even being able to finally give it a name, but thought it might be of interest and perhaps useful in some way.

Also have a theory about the Left’s pattern of behavior as being a blatant attempt to establish a state sanctioned religion. Again, probably not going anywhere, but think the pattern aspect is significant.

I'll return to my hole, now.

Marcus

However, in the case of the 2nd amendment with Shall Not Be Infringed, then I believe the broadest interpretation should apply as that provides the most Liberty to the citizens that exercise it daily in defense of their lives, their family's lives, their livelihood, and our nation's livelihood.

I don't think those four words are contained in any copy of the Constitution used by any federal court judges or justices. None have ever acknowledged them.

Re: Lenity discourse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eloquent and important.

Thank you.