On Oct 12, 2014 6:04 PM, "Benjamin Kreuter" wrote:

On Sun, 2014-10-12 at 04:28 +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

I never understood this though! Doesn't it significantly weaken the

second

...

amendment? What could weigh up to constitutional values, and who is authorized to judge? Please don't say politicians...

Interpretation is an important component of any law, including the constitution. Laws are not software, courts are not computers, and nobody would want to live in a society where the law is completely inflexible. Laws tend to be written non-precisely, and even the bill of rights is not so precisely as to require no interpretation at all.

Yes and no, precision of language can be greater and smaller. It's much overlooked. I find especially computer-related law lacks precision. I also find that precise law is essential, lest it is not law at all. We also see that the "intention of the lawmaker" is an important factor. Finally, we even see laws that depend upon interpretation yet to be given by judges that may oppose directly. Often we see "fundamental law", eg human rights, opposing more readily changed law. And the readily changed law wins easily if polticians interpreted laws in ways that make it simple.

As for the authority to judge, the answer is that "judges" have that authority. Courts exist to settle disputes about the meaning of the law and whether or not it is being followed. I would say that some kind of court system is necessary for the rule of law.

Ah, but that wasn't the question. A judge must always give precedence to constitutional laws. How could a judge explain the second amendment such that machine guns could be illegal? I suspect that ruling should be exceedingly controversial and dangerous.