There is one concept as you study ConLaw that is absolutely essential, and perhaps surprisingly, it isn't even found in the constitutional text! Over the years, as the Supreme Court has evaluated the myriad of issues that come up in the constitutional context, the justices have formulated three tests – strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. These tests, and their variations, form the lifeblood of constitutional analysis.
Your job in ConLaw is to know those tests cold, and know what governmental actions trigger each one. If you can do that, you are well on your way to understanding ConLaw.
But that brings up an interesting question. These tests are highly useful tools, but they are nowhere in the constitutional text. Do you think these three tests are a valid tool of constitutional interpretation?
5 comments:
This peaked my interest. I'll have to go online to find out about these 3 tests. Obviously they are only useful if people know about them.
Hum...or do you mean 3 schools of thought among justices on how to interpret?
Disregard my comment above, "a fool speaks before he hears." Now that I have actually read the chapter, I am beginning to understand the differences in the 3 approaches. There does not seem to be uniformity of when individual ones kick in and there appear to be dangers with each one. You are right about it being interesting that the constitutional text does not contain them.
I'm glad these comments made sense when you had a chance to study up!
You are right, though, about a variety of thoughts on how to interpret the Constitution. You won't learn those so much in a ConLaw course, but it certainly helps to know what perspective the justices are coming from when reading their opinions.
How was your trip?
Thanks for asking! The trip was very successful, praise the Lord.
You can see some
pictures here, if you would like and ministry updates
here and
here.
Post a Comment