I disagree with you there Dan. This article clearly labeled an opinion piece, and Knox is an American citizen. Therefore she, like all voting citizens, has a voice in the law of our country, regardless of expertise.
I disagree with you there Dan. This article clearly labeled an opinion piece, and Knox is an American citizen. Therefore she, like all voting citizens, has a voice in the law of our country, regardless of expertise.
Every American citizen has a voice in the POLITICAL process and the right to say -- and vote -- what she feels the law SHOULD be. But this article is not that. This is not an article about what laws our legislatures (federal and state) should enact regarding a particular topic; it is an article that purports to comment on what the law IS -- i.e., what the Constitution says with regard to a particular topic -- and that is a subject requiring specialized background to interpret and understand.
And to the extent the article expresses an opinion about what the Supreme Court should do -- as opposed to what the legislature should do -- that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the function and purpose of the Court. The Supreme Court should NOT be influenced by public opinion; indeed the Court's function in our system of checks-and-balances is to act as a restraint on public opinion. The public, through their elected representatives, enact the laws; the Supreme Court's function is to say, if needed, "No, you may not do that, the Constitution prevents it," and that decision by the Court must be based on the text and context of the Constitution, and nothing else.
There are plenty of times in our history when a majority would have been glad to use their numerical power and political strength to oppress a minority (either a minority population or a minority opinion); the Constitution and Supreme Court are the checks on that abuse, and for that system to work the Court MUST ignore public opinion and look to nothing but the Constitution. Citizens have a voice in what laws are enacted, but they do not, cannot, and must not have any voice at all in how the Constitution is interpreted with regard to limits on those laws.
Thank you for this Dan. That was the point of my first comment. The author writes in a manner that displays her fundamental lack of understanding about our system of government. Civics teachers in this country have failed to do their jobs (assuming she was brought up in the US...)
I disagree with you there Dan. This article clearly labeled an opinion piece, and Knox is an American citizen. Therefore she, like all voting citizens, has a voice in the law of our country, regardless of expertise.
Every American citizen has a voice in the POLITICAL process and the right to say -- and vote -- what she feels the law SHOULD be. But this article is not that. This is not an article about what laws our legislatures (federal and state) should enact regarding a particular topic; it is an article that purports to comment on what the law IS -- i.e., what the Constitution says with regard to a particular topic -- and that is a subject requiring specialized background to interpret and understand.
And to the extent the article expresses an opinion about what the Supreme Court should do -- as opposed to what the legislature should do -- that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the function and purpose of the Court. The Supreme Court should NOT be influenced by public opinion; indeed the Court's function in our system of checks-and-balances is to act as a restraint on public opinion. The public, through their elected representatives, enact the laws; the Supreme Court's function is to say, if needed, "No, you may not do that, the Constitution prevents it," and that decision by the Court must be based on the text and context of the Constitution, and nothing else.
There are plenty of times in our history when a majority would have been glad to use their numerical power and political strength to oppress a minority (either a minority population or a minority opinion); the Constitution and Supreme Court are the checks on that abuse, and for that system to work the Court MUST ignore public opinion and look to nothing but the Constitution. Citizens have a voice in what laws are enacted, but they do not, cannot, and must not have any voice at all in how the Constitution is interpreted with regard to limits on those laws.
Thank you for this Dan. That was the point of my first comment. The author writes in a manner that displays her fundamental lack of understanding about our system of government. Civics teachers in this country have failed to do their jobs (assuming she was brought up in the US...)