Letter of the law or spirit of the law?

[ColbertWatcher]

Poll question: Letter of the law or spirit of the law?

You have to pick one.

[bemildred]

1. The notion that the letter and the spirit are not the same is false.

[EFerrari]

3. bemildred, have you ever read the Old Testament?

lol

[bemildred]

4. Explain?

Does the Constitution have a 'spirit" that is separate from what it says in plain English?

[EFerrari]

5. Well, in the sense that parsers can always wring what they want out of it,

yeah.

Just like you can do anything with statistics.

Our Constitution is an amazing document, imho, but it's not immune from exegetes with an agenda.

[bemildred]

6. Well, yeah, but so can "spiriters".

I mean what is Rush Limbaugh but a "spiriter"? If the plain English words do not mean what they say, what is there left but some guys opinion?

[depakid]

7. The difference being that you can often find the spirit of the law on the record

or at least, the legislative intent.

[bemildred]

9. According to whom? Who decides?

This is not science, there is no experiment you can do to determine "legislative intent". It's just some guys opinion. You can't ask Washington or Monroe or Jefferson to interpret what they meant now. Do you like Scalia's opinions about these things? I don't. I think when it says "no law" it means no law.

[depakid]

13. Courts often look to the spirit of the law- i.e. the legislative intent

when construing statutes.

One also hopes that DA's and the like look to the spirit of the law (in the more ephemeral sense) when exercising prosecutorial discretion- although in America these days, with all its fear and "zero tolerance" mentality, that's become a lot rarer that many of us would like.

[EFerrari]

15. I think you're right in that it's not science at all. It's about judgment.

In the same way a young girl may not be raped and only groped, the spirit of the law would protect her if the law only stated rape.

There is very much here human judgment involved. But it also has its own logic, finally, and one that can be tracked. :shrug:

[bemildred]

22. Well, I'm saying here that words matter, and must be respected, or you have nothing you can rely on.

You start with the words, and you must not stray too far from the plain meaning of the words. I think that much that is wrong it the US originates in a too easy resort to "interpretation" of what the plain words say.

[EFerrari]

25. I absolutely agree that words matter. I was trained as a literary critic.

But words also signify a meaning that exceeds their syllables and that well meaning people can deduce.

When you think about it, not so well meaning people are all the time working that angle.

[bemildred]

27. LOL.

I suspect we could work out an accomodation. I suspect you would agree with me then, that interpreting the 14th amendment to mean that corporations are "persons" is a mistake? Particularly since a corporation is clearly not a person, but rather a legal fiction constructed for certain economic purposes?

[EFerrari]

8. Limbaugh is a drug addict with a microphone.

The "spirit" of the law is not what people like him say but more that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

I see how the term can be interpreted in our new fundie normal but it used to mean, starting from an ethical viewpoint or, looking at the bigger picture from an ethical (greatest good) stance.

[bemildred]

10. I'm still asking who decides?

If you cannot rely on the plain English meaning of the language used, what do you have left? You have nothing left.

[anigbrowl]

16. Plain English can be ambiguous, and frequently is.

[EFerrari]

18. Thank Gawd. Or critics would get no work.

lol

[bemildred]

19. Indeed.

I'm asking what else do you have? It it all comes down to the current majority opinion, what have a Constitution. You could just do a poll on CNN. I am all for the spirit of the law, but only when it coincides with the plain English meaning of the words that the law is written in. When the Constitution say "make no law" it means that.

[anigbrowl]

21. "make no law" about what?

Fixating on the simplest bit and saying the whole issue is simple is at best naive and at worst dishonest.

[bemildred]

23. I see I have annoyed you. nt

[anigbrowl]

36. Not at all. I'm just not clear on what you're talking about.

Though I think it bears out my point that plain English ain't so plain - lacking context (or time to reread the entire thread), I really don't know what particular issue you're claiming is very simple.

[EFerrari]

17. You have the consensus that people of goodwill come to.

And yes, I know exactly how inexact that is but, that's what we have. :)

[bemildred]

24. And I still say that is "just" somebodies opinion.

The MSM every day tells us what we think. I know you don't approve of that, and I don't either.

[EFerrari]

26. Agreed. And our ability to make stories and to evaluate them

distinguishes us from some of our primate cousins. You're right. It is about subjective judgment or opinion.

[bemildred]

28. Right. And the only way that I know to constrain that within some bounds

is to demand a constant return to the "simple" meaning of the words, insofar as one can do that. It's sort of a tether to keep one from going too far astray.

[notadmblnd]

34. it's been referred to as a living document

therefore, it must have a spirit.:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

12. Oh? Has the law ever mailed you a spirit?

:dunce:

[anigbrowl]

14. Only if you're a priest of some kind. In the real world people make mistakes.

[EFerrari]

2. I voted "spirit" because my Pinko handbook says I must.

:)

[Uncle Joe]

11. I believe the spirit of the people can and does determine the letter of the law.

The Second Amendment being a prime example, depending on your point of view influences the letters you focus on.

To a gun control or elimination advocate

"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."

While to a gun rights advocate.

"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 believe the key words are "free state," leaving to your spirit what the definition of a "free state" is.

[wuushew]

20. Since English is dynamically evolving, it must logically be the spirit

Its bad enough the both hand written and printed documents of the early republic used the long S (ſ ). No child being educated today would recognize the character if reading an old document.

Given another 500 years, reading the Constitution might be as bad as trying to decypher Chaucer.

[ColbertWatcher]

29. What a coincidence! I found this in today's paper ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wolman27-2009may27,0,1071598.story

[ColbertWatcher]

30. Kick. n/t

[johnaries]

31. For all those arguing against the "spirit" of the law

you need to do some research about how justices determine the spirit of the law. It is most definitely NOT the judge's opinion. They take great pains and conduct intensive research to identify the original intent of the lawmakers.

[sutz12]

32. I agree...

It seems to me that case studies and historical precedents establish the "spirit" of laws.

Just taking the written word is dangerous because no legislation has ever been written perfectly. Laws are written by men, and thus imperfect. Laws also are almost always incomplete, in the sense that they all have loopholes. Thus the endless interpretation of legal statutes.

The whole "letter of the law" is too draconian and authoritarian for me. It's tantamount to religious people saying they know "God's will." Really? Were you told what "God's will" is by some person in authority that you trust, or was it just the voice in your head? Either way, I would like to quote Phillipe, from Ladyhawke: "Forgive me, but I talk to God all the time, and he never mentioned you."

:)

[johnaries]

35. EXACTLY! thank you! nt

[LSdemocrat]

33. The idea that either concept is concrete is absurd

Both the letter of the law and the spirit can be read any number of ways due to the vagaries of the English language.