I heard an interesting soundbite from a Senator this morning that got me thinking.
The clip was about the recent passage of the partial birth abortion bill by the Senate. It was this Senator's position that the right to an abortion was constitutionally protected and any limit to the practice is unconstitutional. So, with that statement the Senator espouses a philosophical interpretation of the constitution that whatever is protected by the constitution is absolutely protected. However, this same Senator is a staunch proponent of gun control laws. Which, as you all know, is a constitutionally protected right as well.
So here we have a Senator who on the one hand says that a constitutional right is unassailable and can not be limited in any way (abortion), while on the other hand says that we need to limit the right to gun ownership.
What I find funny is that the Senator wishes to protect innocent life in one instance and protect the right to terminate it in the other. Rather interesting dichotomy if you ask me. Then again, expecting politicians to actually take a fundamental interpretation methodology and apply it to the issues as opposed to taking an issue and finding a convenient interpretation to fit the issue is rather like hoping you will win the lottery that you forgot to buy a ticket for.
So which method is better: apply a fundamental interpretation to the Constitution and let that dictate your position on an issue?
Or, form an opinion on an issue and adapt your interpretation of the Constitution to fit your opinion?
There are pitfalls to each strategy, you end up supporting issues that you are opposed to in the first, and you end up with convoluted interpretations with the second.
Pick your poison.
Marvin
