Is the U.S. Constitution more like a grocery list or a novel?

Findlaw.com ^ | 10/22/07 | Michael C. Dorf

[imd102]

A reader can make what she wants of any given text, but some interpretive methodologies better suit some kinds of texts than they do others. If I agree to go shopping for my neighbor, I will want to interpret the grocery list he gives me in accordance with what I believe he intends. If, for example, the list includes "half gallon milk," and I know that he is a vegan, I will read "milk" to refer to "soy milk," even though in common parlance "milk" means "whole milk from a cow."

People read fiction for all sorts of different reasons. In just about every case, though, the specific intentions of the author seem less important than the objective characteristics of the work. When faced with ambiguity, the reader will want to choose an interpretation that makes the story best hang together. Indeed, ambiguity itself will sometimes provide the most satisfying interpretation.

Is the U.S. Constitution more like a grocery list or a novel?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

If you want to understand your government, don’t begin by reading the Constitution.
It conveys precious little of the flavor of today’s statecraft.
Instead, read selected portions of the Washington telephone directory containing listings for all the organizations with titles beginning with the word `National’.

George Will

[Wolfie]

At this point, I’d say it’s a Fairy Tale.

[Red Badger]

To liberals, it’s more like toilet paper.......

[cotton1706]

It’s a legal document. If you want something somewhat brief but still interesting, I suggest the Mayflower Compact.

[Sherman Logan]

In other words, even if some of Us the People think that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is best read in 2007 to permit Dumbledore to marry whomever he chooses, regardless of sex, the Supreme Court might nonetheless decide not to recognize his right to do so until it sees a clearer social consensus on the point. The one thing the Court should not say, however, is that Dumbledore cannot marry a man in 2007 simply because same-sex marriage was not allowed in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

IOW, the Supreme Court (or rather, 5 of its members) will make all important societal decisions for the rest of us based solely on their determinations about societal consensus.

This is as clear a definition of a tyrannical oligarchy as I've ever seen. 5 people outvoting 300 million people, who aren't even allowed any way to mobilize and change the law back.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

5 people outvoting 300 million people, who aren't even allowed any way to mobilize and change the law back.

Be sure to tell the pro-life activists that they aren't allowed to mobilize and attempt to change the law since Roe v. Wade.

The people have recourse, it's just hard.

[truthluva]

Liberals use it like it’s Silly Putty.

[cpdiii]

The Constitution means exactly what it says, no more no less. It is actually a simple document written in the vernacular of the public at that time. If it is not in the Constitution it is not there and is not to be interpreted as being there by the Judiciary. If we do not like the constitution it can be amended as has occurred several times.

It is the function of the Legislature to write the law. It is the function of the Judiciary to determine if the written law of the legislature is constitutional. When the Judiciary makes law from the bench by interpreting law that is not addressed they have then assumed the function of the legislature and that most definitely is not legal nor their function.

The Judiciary has taken the Constitution and wiped their collective butt with it. The legislature and executive branch have failed to protect the Constitution.PJ O'Rourke said it best when he described congress as, "A PARLIMENT OF WHORES," but I think this comparison is very slanderous of the working ladies. They have some standards, congress has none. They also work for a living and stop scewing you when you are dead, congress does not, i.e. inheritance taxes.

[ctdonath2]

A reader can make what she wants of any given text

At which point communication breaks down.

Making what one "wants" of a text is a plainly deliberate attempt to subvert the meaning which was plainly intended by the author, negating any value of the attempted communication.

Taken too far, such willful dismissal of cooperation and understanding can only lead to force and harm - until one party either conceeds in the face of dire consequences, or assumes room temperature.

[Red6]

The document was INTENTIALLY written in plain and simple to understand English.

However, I guess with years of education in law, those words all begin to become a little confusing for some.

[Red6]

Well written! I like your thinking.

[Hornet19]

“Is the U.S. Constitution more like a grocery list or a novel?”

Though today it is treated as both, it is neither. The U.S. Constitution, to me, is simply the greatest secular document ever penned.

[silentreignofheroes]

However, I guess with years of education in law, those words all begin to become a little confusing for some.

Depends on what the meaning of is is..

I would say when this Country was conceived,The Founding Fathers put the Constitution one step under The Holy Bible..

[Old North State]

Court should not say, however, is that Dumbledore cannot marry a man in 2007 simply because same-sex marriage was not allowed in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified....
Yes they should because that was clearly the intent when it was written. To say that it meant to allow homosexual marriage is preposterous. Those who don’t like that fact can try to get it changed, otherwise Dumbledore, by the same logic, is equally free to marry three men, a goat, or a ten year old.