re: #299 lostlakehiker

The trouble with literal interpretation of the constitution is that sometimes it’s inconvenient. What if you want to bail borrowers out of mortgages with a state law saying they must get a break, but the constitution says no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts?

The SC ruled, back in the 30s, that the constitution could be set aside if they liked the law that did the aside-setting. That bridge has been crossed.

The trouble with non-literal interpretation of the constitution is that once the bridge is crossed, where is the line?

It won’t suffice to point to an explicit provision of the constitution and be sure of winning at the SC. One of these days, somebody’s going to be popular enough that he can win a third term, for instance. Will the constitution be any bar to that?

The actual reason for the ruling in the portion I bolded was that the Constitution could not be enforced in that case, except by using the Army to gun down thousands of people who would have starved had the Constitution been obeyed. It was very problematic ruling, but one made in extremis.

BBIAW