|
stork daddy
|
as intepreters of laws one of course must also interpret the most basic laws, the framework laws of the constitution. In developing the constitution various principles were weighed by the founders: freedom vs. security, individual economic gain vs. group economicc gain, the ideals of inalienable individual dignity and liberty as a new minimum standard in all social contracts. By accepting this document, and its institutions, you also accept as valid the principles which follow strictly from its basic tenets, as well as the new applications of those principles. Of course deciding which applications and principles follow strictly is the province of judges. It is the legislature which recognizes new principles and requests they be judged in terms of their confliction or agreeement with our basic rights. To say, however, that there are no legal principles and only legal rules, is to deny our laws are not subject to the constitution which by no stretch outlines a full body of laws with exceptions making them laws in the true binding sense, but rather legal principles, a penumbra of rights. It is a very good idea leaving this process to a qualified mind, rather than expecting every possible application to be forseen and accounted for within the body. The truth of the matter is that just because there is no explicit law about it does not mean it does not offend a principle. Judges do not excercise arbitrary sovereignty over the law, however, and are grantd limited discretion in that they are matching laws to standards written in plain english and are held accountable as to the reasons for their decisions. Every decision when it is made is an exact one, in that it is final and precedent for now, but this does not mean that every law is exact or else judges would not be required. This means that while they are creating laws, they are doing so guided by the common recognized principles of their field, american justice. Easy judgments are ones in which "hardset" rules are not contradicted, but another responsibility is the unforseen convergence of factors and making sure the final balance takes into account and holds together the accepted policies or principles of our country's most basic character. This is why freedom of speech is not silenced even if you signed away your rights to do so, there are certain contracts not legally binding because of the "default" principles they fail to encompass. We are not so much ruled by law as we are by government, by democracy. Democracy is substantive, there are certain standards which must be met. For instance, a democracy can never recognize a vote to not be a democracy, because that removes individual choice from the process. The constitution in many ways remains the only document which cannot be questioned as the law, because its policy is our starting point. All changes to the law must be dictated by more than social change of course, but by the method the constitution wisely allows for social change to be reflected in law, the interpretation and application of legal policies by judges and the legislature's creation and ennacment of new laws (which one would hope directly recognizes social change, in its own proceedural way of course). A judge works with what she is given by the defining authority and precedent. Her only authority and discretion is determining whether a law meets the crucial standards this country's rights rest on.
|
040326
|
