US Constitutional Interpretation

Post Reply New Topic

Tell that to the pair of lawyers who taught my Journalism Law class at Maryland University. What you "think" is wrong.

A) As an interesting aside: there was newstory 20 years ago about highschool kids printing stuff. And some local farmer on screen argued that "freedom of the press is really extension of property rights. You have the right to control your own property-including your printing presses. Since students dont own the presses they dont have the freedom to control them." Made sense to me while I was watching it. And it wouldve made no difference if the school was private, public, or parochial, or whatever.

However -years later when the issue was covered in Journalism law- I was surprised to learn that the Surpreme court thought differently. I think that the Kentucky farmer's logic made more sense than that of the legal scholars on the Supreme Court, but whatever. Thats how the supreme court ruled. So DEAL with it!

I'm not directly disputing your comprehension of the subject, but I think we would need to read the Supreme Court's ruling to check if your understanding of the issue corresponds with the facts since it seems to contradict the commonly accepted hierarchical structure of rights.

The notion that the Supreme Court is infallible, or a reliable arbiter of Truth, is frankly laughable. Since the end of the Lochner era, nearly eighty years ago, Court rulings have been increasingly arbitrary and nonobjective. These days it's a pleasant surprise when a Court decision actually shows some semblance of being in accord with the Constitution and with logic.

In the real world of print and broadcast journalism, it isn't individual journalists who enjoy the freedom to say anything not libelous. It's the publishers, the owners of the presses, the owners of the station or the network. A journalist who violates his publisher's editorial policy will soon find himself on the street.

True; particularly in the litigation against Jane Akre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre who is "best known for the whistleblower lawsuit by herself and her former husband, Steve Wilson, against Fox Broadcasting Company station WTVT in Tampa, Florida."

It's not whatever the people say it means, but it is whatever the Supreme Court says it means. You can't have language without interpretation on some level. Yes, the opinions of the founders are weighed, but they aren't everything. It's not the Bible, it's a living document.

Some believe it is, and perhaps the notion will become relevant one day. As of now there is nothing immediately graspable supporting such a postulate.

I am certain that U.S. Supreme Court justices agree with your assessment because the Court's opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), established the boundaries of the Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison by "holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established." The opinion set the stage for the Court to have constitutional review of legislative and executive actions.

But, many subsequent cases which have been considered by the Court have tried to find an application of the original intent of the Founders and Framers with contemporary conditions. Two of the most recent contentious and sweeping Court opinions were those about District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller which determined that "the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago which determined that "the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to 'keep and bear arms' protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of [...] Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states."

Most important about these opinions was the justices' consideration of original intent by studying contemporaneous writings of the Founders and Framers about the idea of what the Second Amendment meant at the time it was adopted. A majority of the Court agreed with the original intent found in both cases and, as such, finally explained and addressed the long-unanswered question about the right to keep and bear arms."

I can't say that the Court takes the same care to consider original intent with all its cases, but it tries often to do so. And, when it does, it recognizes that the Constitution isn't a living document that can change with current fads or trends, but lives on exactly as originally intended.

Then why can it be amended? Why did the Supreme Court recently determine that residents of D.C. have a right to carry small arms? Every decision the court makes re-interprets the Constitution.

Shouldn't it be?


I don't know the case, and I haven't read the ruling, but a wild guess would be to protect the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the Second Amendment.


This sounds a bit odd.

Last edited by Humanaut on 01 Aug 2014, 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

If we're going to amend the constitution to suit whatever's in vogue at the time then why even have a constitution at all?
What's in it that needs to be amended?

Valid point. Maybe the Second Amendment is a thing of the past.


Nothing at the moment as far as I know.

Many commentators agree. But, I don't see any reinterpretive action by the Court which determined that, since the Constitution was written, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has generally meant that they may keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons in general use by military and police) at any place which isn't a "secure area" or private property where the owner prohibits it.

Any reinterpretation came from those governments (District of Columbia and Chicago) which prohibited the mere possession of arms unconstitutionally.

As for amending the Constitution, I support wholeheartedly for those who want to reinterpret it to follow its own conditions to change it. The high standard of amending it (acceptance by two-thirds of the members of the Congress or constitutional convention, and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures) shows that the Founders didn't mean for any provision to be reinterpreted on a whim. It is difficult for a reason. It is a firewall against abuse.

This sounds like a much safer procedure than treating the Constitution like a so-called living document.

I meant to ask you, Humanaut, if you really live in Norway. I am too frequently surprised that people around the world know more about U.S. constitutional law than our own citizens appear to.

I'm a Norwegian living in Norway.

The reason why I know a bit about the subject is because I'm interested in philosophy.

What do you think of the U.S. Constitution's brevity? I see, as well, that the Norwegian Constitution is fairly brief.