The Right To Interpret The United States Constitution

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina want a state religion and are trying to fight for it by calling the interpretation of the Constitution into question.  Their argument looks valid, but I don't think it is sound.

The first premise is the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution:

(1) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The second premise is this:

(2) The power to determine what is or is not constitutional is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.

If both of these premises are accepted, then the following conclusion seems inevitable:

(3) The power to determine what is or is not constitutional is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As stated in their recently filed bill, Republicans in North Carolina draw this final conclusion:

(4) "Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion."

The most obvious line of criticism, I think, is to reject the second premise.  Article III of the Constitution vests the United States with a judicial system.  The courts must interpret the Constitution in order to carry out their duty, and by so interpreting it, they determine what is or is not constitutional.  (2) is therefore false and the rest of the argument collapses.

One might also question the move from (3) to (4), but that looks like murkier territory to me.  The argument is plainly unsound.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Argument For Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the idea that there is no conflict between determinism and free will.  Incompatibilism is the idea that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.  There's been a lot of discussion over which view is correct.  What's remarkable about the debate isn't so much the stubbornness or passion which has been exhibited by this or that party, but the fact that the very terms of the debate are controversial.  There is a great deal of confusion about what the key issues in the debate are and how we should be talking about them.  As a result, there is a meta-debate within the debate itself.  You cannot engage in the debate without also engaging in a debate about the debate--about what issues are at stake and about how the issues should be framed.  So here's what I want to do:  I want to explain why I think incompatibilists are doing a very bad job of framing the debate, and also why compatibilism is the most reasonable option on the t...
Read more

Sam Harris and the Moral Realism/Moral Relativism Myth

There is a popular misconception that, if you are not a moral realist, you are a moral relativist. Yet, most non-theistic professional philosophers may be neither. As I'll explain, I prefer a variety of anti-realism called moral noncognitivism. First, I want to discuss the moral realism/moral relativism myth. Moral realists believe in objective truths about right and wrong, whereas moral relativists believe that moral truths are subjective, or limited by the beliefs and values of particular communities and cultures. Moral relativists are people who say, for example, that genital mutilation isn't absolutely or universally wrong--it's just wrong for some people. Moral realists respond, "No, genital mutilation really is [or, perhaps, really isn't] wrong, for all people and all times--all things being equal." This is usually how the issue is framed in popular culture, particularly in debates over atheism and the role of religion in society. It is not uncommo...
Read more

Luke Skywalker and Rey: Comparing Character Arcs

My second viewing of The Force Awakens only reinforced my admiration.  I'm very impressed by Rey as a character, and so I want to respond to the prevalent criticism that she does not have a satisfying character arc.  I think she stands up better than many people think.  To prove it, let's compare her arc to Luke's in the original Star Wars, Episode 4: A New Hope.   Luke and Rey each have two inner conflicts dealing with the themes of loyalty and trust, but in Rey's case, the conflicts converge and are developed in a more dramatic and I think satisfying way. At the start of Episode IV: A New Hope , Luke wants to be loyal to his aunt and uncle, but also wants to follow his own dreams.  This is his first inner conflict.  His dreams are somewhat vague at first: He wants to get off Tatooine, join the academy, be heroic, etc.  When Ben Kenobi tells him his father was a Jedi Knight killed by Darth Vader, his motivation becomes more focused: He wants to joi...
Read more