Constable queried about abortion etc during interview

[Alyeska]

Where does it say it protects anything other than the body?

So how does one protect Freedom of Speech if the constitution only protects the body....

The statement that there shall be no religious tests for office. How does that protect the body?

But as others have pointed out. You are a racist shitbag.

[Broomstick]

You are just as capable of looking up the Texas constitution as the rest of us. Since you are so hell bent on literal interpretation perhaps you should look it up before commenting on something relevant to that docutment.

It wasn't relevant to my original point, which is an inconsistency in denouncing things as unconstitutional when supporting an unconstitutional policy.

Bullshit. How can you possibly debate the constitutionality of something occurring in Texas without reference to the Texas state constitution?

First, maybe you ARE in fact opposed to the Brown case ruling (in theory). If you are, then you are exempt from my criticism as it was worded. However, there IS no theory that makes sense

Fuck you, you piece of shit racist asshole. I'm not playing your game involving dichotomies that simply don't exist in the real world.

Second, I have to use a narrow interpretation or I am in fact imposing my own philosophy on the Constitution.

Your interpretation is so narrow as to make the edge a razor blade look like a two lane road. You ARE, in fact, imposing your own "philosophy" on the constitution by claiming to know best what it really is.

The founding fathers clearly were NOT opposed to change - they threw out the Articles of Confederation as unworkable, which is how we got the constitution of the United States. They built in a mechanism for changing that document as needed. They decreed the judiciary to be the arbiters of law. Your stance ignores all of that for blind worship of something you clearly do not understand.

Third, the U.S Constitution is not involable and unchangable but it is Sovereign. It can only be changed by means which (to use a metaphor) the Constitution itself consents to.

Right. Amendment (of which the 14th is one) and the Supreme Court decides what is and isn't constitutional. All of which you seem to have a problem with.

[Carinthium]

On consideration, I figure that I can't create a literalist interpretation which does not involve the use of philosophical intepretation. Any legal interpretation which involves philosophy is unacceptable (as that means that there are things implicit in the law rather than outright stated, making a mockery of any right to understand law).

Since I can't use intentionalism either, I've changed my mind. The only remaining stance for me to adopt is that any law which has ambiguity in it is inherently invalid.

[Thanas]

It is almost like Carinthium has no idea of how statutes are interpreted. The literal meaning is only one of at least four accepted options.

I have already explained why I advocate literalist interpretation. Given the absurdity of the current interpretation system, why should I pay it any attention?

So you consider yourself smarter than all the jurists before you, including the founders?

Rules of interpretation that the Founding Fathers knew of and intended to be used for their Constitution are at least plausible- but why consider rules created after their time?

Too bad that all the rules were already well in existence when they wrote the constitution.

Where does the constitution says that it protects only the body?

Where does it say it protects anything other than the body?

Freedom of speech, freedom to own property etc. Alyeska deallt with that.

Did you miss how that is illegal for the state (except in some cases like where women are just not physically able to perform the same things)?

Discrimination against children is also illegal if the law says they should be treated the same. You got no case and your frantic attempts to obfuscate the issue are getting tiresome.

So you're biting the bullet, and accepting that it is illegal for the state to reject somebody for a job on the basis of them being a child?

Assuming the legal working age includes children, then yes.

Why the heck not? Even if you define something like "title of nobility" you still have to say something with regards to intent for otherwise there would be no Bishops, Cardinals etc. in the USA.

I already explained this regarding my Philosophy of Law.

No, you did not. If you did, then copy paste should be even available to somebody like you.

You can discriminate aganist a person and protect them at the same time. Besides, what I consider a "literal meaning" to be is a "proper dictionary meaning"- i.e. the meaning that would be in the dictionary were it perfectly fullfilling its function as a dictionary.

In short, "what I say it does". I must say, for a troll you are exceedingly funny.

On consideration, I figure that I can't create a literalist interpretation which does not involve the use of philosophical intepretation. Any legal interpretation which involves philosophy is unacceptable (as that means that there are things implicit in the law rather than outright stated, making a mockery of any right to understand law).

Since I can't use intentionalism either, I've changed my mind. The only remaining stance for me to adopt is that any law which has ambiguity in it is inherently invalid.

So you now consider the constitution to be invalid? How deep of the trollish end are you?

[Ahriman238]

Since I can't use intentionalism either, I've changed my mind. The only remaining stance for me to adopt is that any law which has ambiguity in it is inherently invalid.

Oh dear. There goes the entire body body of law following Hammurabi.

Out of curiosity, could you provide an example of a "valid" law with no ambiguity whatsoever?

[Vehrec]

On consideration, I figure that I can't create a literalist interpretation which does not involve the use of philosophical intepretation. Any legal interpretation which involves philosophy is unacceptable (as that means that there are things implicit in the law rather than outright stated, making a mockery of any right to understand law).

Since I can't use intentionalism either, I've changed my mind. The only remaining stance for me to adopt is that any law which has ambiguity in it is inherently invalid.

So let me get this straight. You want law to be both easily understood by the layman, who will not have time to study it, but also rigidly specific, unambiguous, and literal. Don't you see that the result of this would be a vast and ever-shifting canon of legality that no individual could hope to be kept informed of and aware of all the possible violations he or she may commit in daily business?