The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Indeed, Dave, two cheers. But not three. This language sounds right on enthusiastic skim but look again and it’s all wrong:

“the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives”

Not only must the present generation have that chance, that chance is not a chance but a certainty. There is no “should” about it, or there is only insofar as what is not unconstitutional “should” not be held to be unconstitutional. The duty is not moral. Even the right answer wrongly derived is to be appreciated on its merits, but I worry when even would-be strict constructionists lapse into normative language — the flashing red light of which is that bad old chestnut of imaginitive jurisprudence — “We believe.”

topics:
Constitution

Related Blog Posts

More Blog Posts by James Poulos

http://spectator.org/blog/2006/07/06/re-new-york-state-court-of-app

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT