Ouch My Head Hurts!

Judicial Philosophy:

Let me start by saying, "I am not a lawyer". On the other hand, neither were a lot of the founding fathers.

With that said, I think the whole concept of Judicial Philosophy is pretty lame.

People want what they want, and will do mental gymnastics to justify getting it. If two people read the same sections of the constitution, their interpretations will hinge on making it agree with what they want to do. If this was not an inherit part of being human, we would not need a Supreme Court. Heck we wouldn't need courts at all. If this were not true, everyone would read the same sentence and always agree how to apply it.

So I view the philosophies of "Strict interpretation of the constitution" and "The constitution is a living document" as being fake catch phrases. What the user is really saying is that they are a "right winger" or a "left winger".

Let's look at two items in the Bill of rights:

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I've read a lot of history and watched a bunch of period shows on the educational channels. I have a fair idea of what a militia was, and I can read the English language. (Even if I do occasionally flub my spelling.) It seems pretty obvious to me that I should be able to buy a machine gun, silencer or cannon with out having to fill out forms, pay license fees and wait for the government's permission to own any of these objects. The gun dealer shouldn't need a license and I should not need a license. "Shall not be infringed", seems like a pretty straight forward statement to me. Everyone at the time of the writing had guns and some of them owned cannons. They were not drooling morons; they knew what they were writing.

Yet just walk up to your local gun dealer and try to buy a cannon or machine gun today. You'll feel pretty darn infringed very quickly.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This seems like a pretty straight forward statement. To paraphrase the first half, "Both myself and my stuff is none of the government's (or anyone else's) business". I don't remember saying anyone could collect my credit history. And if I thought I could get them to stop I would tell them to. I have reached a point in my life were I don't need credit anymore.

I also don't look at the phrase "secure in their persons" and not realize the government doesn't have the right to tell me what to do with my body. If I want to have a "W" tattooed on my forehead or have an abortion (a physcial imposibiltity in my case), it's not the governments business.

For those of you who are not paying attention, I just interpreted the constitution. And I'm shocked to learn that I interpreted it in favor of my own personal views. What an amazing coincidence! No doubt this totally random event is due to my Judicial Philosophy of rigidly interpreting the text.

There are probably some saint-like individuals in this world capable of not letting their personal views affect their judgment. I severely doubt you will find any of them in government service or aspiring to high office. I've never met one, but I understand they tend to hangout on remote mountain tops and isolated monasteries.