>>>>>>>Article 3 Section 2 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec2.html
>>>>>>>The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Constitution is not to be interpreted, it is to be used to interpret cases, legislation, treaties etc. We need the judicial branch to ensure that the Legislative and Executive branches do not violate the Constitution. If the Constitution is open to interpretation, then there is no established rigorous "check" on the other branches, merely the whims of the present justices. The Constitution is meant to stand as THE law establishing and thereby restraining the power of the 3 branches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The problem is that the Constitution sometimes needs interpretation. Let's take one clause that's been in the news over the last few years:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From Article 2, Section 1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Questions I can see quickly from that sentence:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1) What is the meaning of "natural born"? Specifically, does it mean "born a citizen" or "born within the borders of the US"? (If I wanted to be argumentative, I could even point out that one interpretation would even eliminate those born by C-Section or those for whom labor was induced. But I think we can all agree that the founders weren't really interested in the manner of birth.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2) Does "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" mean that you have to have been living within the US borders for all of the last 14 years? Does that mean service people who've been stationed outside the US are eliminated? What about people who lived overseas for work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's too meaty questions from one sentence. How can you say the document doesn't need to be interpreted?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a few minutes so I'll bite.
>>>>>
>>>>>The phrase "natural born citizen" as understood in the verbage of the time, derived from the English common law that the framers used as a basis. It refers to children born in a country to parents who are its citizens. This phrasing was used to define citizens seperately from foreigners as a primary concern at the time was having a person with foreign loyalty placed in charge of the new Republic and its military. There was no debate regarding the phrasing which was adopted by the drafting Committee of Eleven suggesting that it's meaning was understood well enough to not require explicit definition nor controversial enough to rise to require debate.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not so sure. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution) quotes Hamilton as proposing a far less ambiguous wording, but that wasn't adopted. Reading the quote from Madison there, it sure sounds like American citizens born outside the country wouldn't be eligible.
>>>>
>>>>IOW, there has had to be interpretation of that clause. And, in fact, lots of the language is subject to inpretation. Yes, the founders' other writings provide some insight into their thinking, but we also have to acknowledge that the document was a compromise and so, no one founders' thoughts are exactly what we got.
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
>>>
>>>Exactly. Common sense dictates the words cannot be taken literally. For example you have freedom of speech but you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
>>
>>Constitutionally, yes you can and that is clear "Congress shall make no law".
>>
>>Since you've fallen into the common misstating of the phrase (should be "falsely shouting fire") here's the context.
>>http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
>>
>>Please note a couple items:
>>
>>Justice Holmes statement is used to justify the high court's unanimous decision that a citizen cannot distribute anti-draft flyers because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war.
>>
>>The decision was limited in a later case.
>>
>>That the original decision regarding limiting political speech was unanimous is a disasterous ruling and perfectly makes my case. "Congress shall make no law" is clear, yet here's a unanimous court upholding a political speech restriction. The Constitution has less meaning because of it. If the very 1st amendment, the one right the founders deemed so important that it was listed first, can be watered down, then everything else can as well. Thus, there is no framework and no law.
>>
>>>You have a right to bear arms but not an m-16 or ouzi.
>>
>>Constitutionally, yes you do. Cannons can do a lot more damage than an M-16 or Uzi. Privately owned cannons were used during the Revolution and they were privately owned during the writing of the Constitution. They were not excluded and a couple founding fathers, including Jefferson owned one or more themselves. Many private citizens own them today and you can too. Search "Buy Field Cannon". "shall not be infringed".
>>
>>>The Constitution is not the bible (if you were inclined to take the bible literally) .
>>
>>Constitution != Bible (where Bible is taken literally)
>>By reason you are concluding that the Constitution is not to be taken literally. In which case, there is no Constitution, thus no law.
>>
>>>It's an attempt by men for a solid foundation of law for a country. They would probably be the first people to tell you that if they could.
>>
>>It is not an attempt. It is THE founding framework of this country and THE supreme law of the land.
>
>It is a guideline or framework.

It is that which constitutes our nation and it is the Supreme Law in that regard.

Article 6
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

>"expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." from
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

From that very same wiki.

First, here's the entire sentence you selectively highlighted.
The quote is used as an example of speech which is claimed to serve no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous, such as distributing fliers in opposition to a military draft, so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Second, Justice Holmes changed his mind.
Fenan writes that Justice Holmes began to doubt his decision due to criticism received from Free Speech activists. He also met the legal scholar Zechariah Chafee and discussed his work "Free Speech in Wartime" [2] According to Fenan, Holmes change of heart influenced his decision to join the minority and dissent in the Abrams v. United States case. Abrams was deported for issuing flyers saying the US should not intervene in the Russian Revolution. Holmes and Brandeis said that 'a silly leaflet by an unknown man' should not be considered illegal.

Third, the ruling was later limited.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).