[Labyrinthos]

In your opinion does whatever particular part of the Constitution being considered have a fixed meaning based on the words or is the meaning whatever 9 supreme court justices say it is?

The constitution would not work if had a fixed meaning based upon the words because words often have different meaning to different people under different circumstances. That's why we have Supreme Court. If SCOTUS rules against the popular will, then the people can amend the constitution to overule the SCOTUS; and if SCOTUS misinterprets congressional intent, then congress can pass remedial legislation to correct the error.

The Free Speech clause of the 1st Amendment is a good example. The words are straight forward and without exception, yet SCOTUS has drawn many exceptions over the years by going beyond the plain meaning of the words. If the SCOTUS is irrelevant as you suggest, then we really need only two branches of federal government. And if SCOTUS can't look beyond the precise words in the text, then it has no basis for the "fighting words" and national security" exceptions to the free speech clause.

[Ann Archy]

Still not answering!!

[Lost Highway]

---

Lost Highway: In your opinion does whatever particular part of the Constitution being considered have a fixed meaning based on the words or is the meaning whatever 9 supreme court justices say it is? <

---

Labyrinthos:The constitution would not work if had a fixed meaning based upon the words because words often have different meaning to different people under different circumstances. That's why we have Supreme Court.If SCOTUS rules against the popular will, then the people can amend the constitution to overule the SCOTUS; and if SCOTUS misinterprets congressional intent, then congress can pass remedial legislation to correct the error.

The Free Speech clause of the 1st Amendment is a good example. The words are straight forward and without exception, yet SCOTUS has drawn many exceptions over the years by going beyond the plain meaning of the words. If the SCOTUS is irrelevant as you suggest, then we really need only two branches of federal government. And if SCOTUS can't look beyond the precise words in the text, then it has no basis for the "fighting words" and national security" exceptions to the free speech clause.

---

I certainly agree with you that there are things that need to be interpreted by the SCOTUS. Sticking with the 1st amendment, the word establishment is one that can mean different things to different people. But two words that are not subject to interpretation are Congress and law. In the context of the Constitution Congress is clearly the body of duly elected representatives in the Senate and House. Law is clearly legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. Clearly the phrase "Congress shall make no law" qualifies everything following. The 1st amendment is clearly saying that Congress cannot pass laws that abridge the items following. The only way one can get to where we are now is to inerpret that for some reason Congress doesn't actually mean Congress. And that law doesn't actually mean law. Which renders the Constitution irrelevent.