Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
if you want examples of vagueries....
|
If those examples were in the body of the constitution, I would agree with you. However, they are all in the bill of rights. Why was the bill of rights established? It was to enumerate certain rights that belong to the people that the government shall never be permitted to infringe upon. The Constitution would not have been ratified without them.
Looking at the 9th Amendment, it is clear that the bill of rights is simply a starting point to appease the original signatories. The Constitution is a limitation on government, not something that grants rights to the people. Those rights are understood without having to be enumerated. The states simply wanted the bill of rights as a show of good faith that the government truly would not and could not stop the people from doing such things.
So I believe that the bill of rights should have as "liberal" an interpretation as possible, and were designed to be as such. So, while it is true that "unreasonable" is widely open to interpretation, I don't see that as a problem. Eminent domain, however, is not widely open to interpretation. Interstate commerce is clearly definable, and therefore also should not be open to interpretation.
So, to define speech, it is anything that can come out of my mouth. Then we have the "well, can I yell fire in a crowded theatre" arguments, which goes to public safety, etc, and that has been argued for all eternity.
I am upset when the bill of rights is NOT interpretted liberally. More along the lines of speech - campaign finance laws clearly violate my free speech. I now cannot get on TV and say anything negative about an incumbant 90 days prior to an election. What? That is a clear violation of the first amendment.
I think the body of the constitution is beyond clear in the limitations set upon the government, and that is the purpose of the document.