Wouldn't the interpretation of the Constitution rely on the Preamble and the consequence of any interpretation that does not follow from the Preamble be invalid? Perhaps the inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (happiness is certainly ambiguous) is a guiding principle for interpretation.
You refer to the Declaration of Independence on those last three principles, not the Preamble. I imagine courts are very reluctant to do so because the Preamble, at first blush, is very vague, purposive, and aspirational. If it was relied on in more constitutional disputes, there would likely be a great outcry about the inherent subjectivity of the words and how it can be used to support any preconceived result. There are actually some scholarly discussions on whether the Preamble should be afforded interpretive weight. David Schwartz of the University of Wisconsin is working on a forthcoming paper supporting that idea.
I love the National Constitution Center and I'm usually a big fan of these, but this session was pretty unhelpful. Cass is particularly bad at getting his point across. At times he was nearly incoherent.
Wouldn't the interpretation of the Constitution rely on the Preamble and the consequence of any interpretation that does not follow from the Preamble be invalid? Perhaps the inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (happiness is certainly ambiguous) is a guiding principle for interpretation.
You refer to the Declaration of Independence on those last three principles, not the Preamble. I imagine courts are very reluctant to do so because the Preamble, at first blush, is very vague, purposive, and aspirational. If it was relied on in more constitutional disputes, there would likely be a great outcry about the inherent subjectivity of the words and how it can be used to support any preconceived result.
There are actually some scholarly discussions on whether the Preamble should be afforded interpretive weight. David Schwartz of the University of Wisconsin is working on a forthcoming paper supporting that idea.
I love the National Constitution Center and I'm usually a big fan of these, but this session was pretty unhelpful. Cass is particularly bad at getting his point across. At times he was nearly incoherent.
Didn't this guy (Cass Sunstein) talk about "cognitive infiltration "? Essentially mind-f*cking the populace, lol