According to Shapiro, Interpretation is the activity through which a legal text is given a certain meaning: any act of interpretation, then, can subsumed under a certain “interpretive methodology,” that is, “a method for reading legal texts”
Every legal culture allows for a vast array of interpretive methodologies. Moreover in any case, (a): more than one interpretive methodology can be legitimately available to the interpreter, and (b)the different interpretive methodologies available to the interpreter can lead to different interpretive results. The conclusion immediately follows that the interpreter, in most cases (maybe, always), is supposed to make a choice between the various interpretive methodologies available. (Shapiro)
And in this case, the Supreme Court diverted from what the framers intended when they created the Constitution. They gave their own meaning (interpretation) to what they think the constitution say and judged a fellow human as not a citizen, having no right to bring suit to federal court as well as just a property to another without any consideration; which makes them divert from the limits of the Constitution. And as Shapiro insinuated, before concluding any in any case, choices as supposed to be made as per what is the Constitution really means and say (in this case) instead of totally diverting from limitations of the constitution and making decisions based on their own beliefs or feelings.
No comments:
Post a Comment