Hacker News Reader

Comment by Locke1689 | Hacker News Reader

Your rant is misguided and childish. The law is dynamic because it must be applied in areas where no prior written text has a straightforward conclusion.

A simple example is wiretapping laws. Because of historical stare decisis interpretations of the Constitution, it is ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to wiretap a citizen without a court order. Nowhere in the Constitution is this protection written -- it required the application of the spirit of the document to the 20th century by the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, we don't need to bicker about this because you seem to hold the Constitution as the preeminent law of the land. Since the Constitution is correct by definition (according to you) and it gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over its interpretation, the Supreme Court is also correct by definition.

View on HN

> you seem to hold the Constitution as the preeminent law of the land

To the contrary, my point is this document is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. So, who interprets it? The judges of course! The very people this document is supposed to protect me from. Seems a bit circular. Fast forward to year 2012, and judges say it's OK to seize domain names. How can the constitution defend my right to free speech and also defend the government's right to seize domains?

yes, who watches the watchers?

Ever heard of separation of powers? Three branches of government?

Remind me, who was declaring war reserved for?

Fast forward to year 2012, and judges say it's OK to seize domain names.

Then it's Constitutional by definition. Congress, however, can pass a law amending the Constitution to prohibit the seizure of domain names. Then it's no longer Constitutional. Do they not teach the three branches of government or checks and balances in middle school anymore?

Congress cannot amend the constitution as easily as it can pass a law. The States have to agree to it as well.

Yeah. It's the Constitution. It's supposed to be hard to change.

"and it gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over its interpretation"

[citation needed]

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Right. Where's the bit about determining the constitutionality of laws? It's not spelled out

Just read Marbury v. Madison. I have no more time for a 5th grade civics lesson.

You should have revisited the situation after fifth grade. Fifth grade teachers like to simplify things. Marbury introduced judicial review. It's not in the constitution.

Good thing I never mentioned judicial review, right? Appellate reviews satisfies my statement just fine. Also, while judicial review did become reinforced after Marbury v. Madison, you'll note that the power was derived from an interpretation of the Constitution, not the court itself. That the Constitution implies judicial review is in purview of SCOTUS is a long-accepted interpretation of the Constitution.

The idea that the courts have jurisdiction over the interpretation of the constitution (as opposed to, say, each branch being independently obligated to adhere to the constitution) is judicial review, not appellate review.

You called him misguided and childish. You lose the argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com