[the808bass]

So, I ask for the third time, what settles an argument between two men on the meaning of a Scripture passage?

The same thing that settles an argument between two men on the meaning of a Constitutional passage - the Constitution.

[SoothingDave]

The same thing that settles an argument between two men on the meaning of a Constitutional passage - the Constitution.

Surely you jest. Or have you taken up feeding us straight lines now?

The Constitution is as inert as the Bible. It just sits there. Men must look at the characters, organize them into words reflecting concepts and objects and imbue them with meaning.

The Constitution does not rule on cases about its meaning -- its official interpreters do.

SD

[Conservative til I die]

The same thing that settles an argument between two men on the meaning of a Constitutional passage - the Constitution.

Really? That's funny. So if that is so, how can there be such thing as a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. If the Supreme Court's job is to decide what is and is not Constitutional, and if we are applying a "Sola Scriptura" (Sola Constitutia maybe?) trait to the Constitution, then it cannot be possible for there to be a split decision, unless (wo)men are using their own personal interpretation of the Constitution, with each of them thinking his decision and the reasoning behind it are impeccable.

Simply put, to put one's faith in a book or document as the root of all truth, there has to be one supreme body whose word on the matter is final, and unchallengable. In the case of a religious matter, that supreme body would have to be divinely anointed for that task. Otherwise you get 28,000 different interpretations of the same couple hundred pages or so.