I heard an excellent argument on the radio this morning; If the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", and amendments can come Supreme Court Justices without the effort and expense of a Constitutional Amendment, then no arguments about what the language of the Constitution means are necessary or possible.
People who argue this have clearly never had to go to court to enforce a contract and face some yahoo lawyer in a fancy suit explain how salable does not mean capable of being offered for sale, or how supervise does not mean oversee, or that even though both parties had lawyers to review every syllable, THEY were taken advantage of by the other side who had some esoteric secret knowledge and enforcing the plain words of the contract is unfair and a miscarriage of justice.
Always wanted to hear a judge tell such a lawyer "So you're admitting you're incompetent? Were unable to understand what was written on the paper before you? Then your client needs a new lawyer."
2 comments:
I heard an excellent argument on the radio this morning; If the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", and amendments can come Supreme Court Justices without the effort and expense of a Constitutional Amendment, then no arguments about what the language of the Constitution means are necessary or possible.
People who argue this have clearly never had to go to court to enforce a contract and face some yahoo lawyer in a fancy suit explain how salable does not mean capable of being offered for sale, or how supervise does not mean oversee, or that even though both parties had lawyers to review every syllable, THEY were taken advantage of by the other side who had some esoteric secret knowledge and enforcing the plain words of the contract is unfair and a miscarriage of justice.
Always wanted to hear a judge tell such a lawyer "So you're admitting you're incompetent? Were unable to understand what was written on the paper before you? Then your client needs a new lawyer."
Post a Comment