Letter of the Law versus Spirit of the Law

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Japher
I am defining the Spirit of the Law as the soul intention behind the law, and I draw that intention from the origions of the law.

There usually isn't a sole intention behind a law. Politics makes for some strange bedfellows.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sava
Guns are a perfect example. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the availability of what the Founding Fathers knew as arms (18th century muskets). The letter of the law says that all arms would be legal. Most normal people would agree that machine-guns, assault rifles, and sub-machine guns should not be available because their sole purpose is to kill lots of people.

My point is not that guns should be banned or not. But rather, we should take a good look at the constitution and update it.

Interesting example : did the Founding Fathers wanted that a citizen can kill one person at a time, or that he can kill one person out of the 20 millions or so existing in this time; the same proportion (14 out of 280 millions) would clearly necessitate now a submachine gun.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Japher, the problem is legislative history is VERY sketchy. I suggest you read some of Justice Scalia's work. In one of his books he tells about Congressional aides that wrote the Congressional Record (which judges use as the 'spirit of the law') and their laughter that some of the BS they threw in there was actually being used to validate or invalidate something.

If I still a bag of golf clubs, as the man in article, am I hit with 18 counts of theft or just one? What if I still a single pair of pants? Is this two accounts or one, since it is a "pair of pants"? How about a ring with three stoned? You see where I am going?

No... but it is only one count of theft, since it is only one 'act' (coming out of the same occurance).

[Japher]

The debate was on letter of the law vs. spirit of the law, not how bad the US' record keeping is. If the spirit of the law cannot be defined for a specific case then the debate is mute, however 3 strikes is very fresh and very well documented. In cases were origins cannot be defined it might be, as I mentioned early, defined by previous presidences.

As one action leads to one "act" this is not always the case.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by gunkulator

Huh? Reread that ammendment there. The 2nd ammendment is the only one that actually does provide its reasoning right there in the wording. The right to bear arms is necessary to maintain the militia for the security of the state. That's it.

An almost perfect example of how the letter of the law can be corrupted by skewed reasoning, while the spirit of the law may be preserved in other documents.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by SpencerH


An almost perfect example of how the letter of the law can be corrupted by skewed reasoning, while the spirit of the law may be preserved in other documents.

or you could just accept what the 2A says at face value without any need for "other documents."

[SpencerH]

Then we should do away with the Supremes since by your 'logic' its unnecessary to interpret the constitution. We simply take everything at 'face value'. What a brilliant concept, originating as it does from a superior intellect! Theres no way to misunderstand what I mean since all written words can only be interpreted in one way. N'est-ce pas?

[Ben Kenobi]

How do we know what the 'spirit' of the law is? People vote on laws for different reasons.

Well we should try to figure out the intent of the founders, rather than our own modern interpretations.

This seems for me to be a more consistent method of interpreting the law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well we should try to figure out the intent of the founders, rather than our own modern interpretations.

Why? Things were much different when the founders made the law. Times change and laws need to be reinterpreted according to the change in the meaning of words.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well we should try to figure out the intent of the founders, rather than our own modern interpretations.

Why? Things were much different when the founders made the law. Times change and laws need to be reinterpreted according to the change in the meaning of words.

I disagree. The laws (or rights) dont need 'to be reinterpreted according to the change in the meaning of words." Clearly the world has changed since the constitution was written. If any of the rights have become obsolete then the constitution needs to be amended not 're-interpreted'.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but the 'intent' was that the Constitution be re-interpreted.

As as loin said, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Intent is a bad way to base an argument. Because you can equally find contrary 'intent'. The law should be interpreted according to the meaning of the words at the time of interpretation, NOT original intent, which is meaningless.

[GePap]

When it comes to enforcement, the letter of the law should come first, but only in so far as the letter is clear. There are many times when the letter is ambiguous, and that is when the "spirit" comes in.

The 2nd Ammendment is a good example: the letter of the law is NOT CLEAR: after all, "for the purpose of maintining a well armed militia"? Private? Run by states? Is this the only time? If the letter of the law as always so clear, then the whole argument about "spirit" would never come in, since you could always clearly set down the spirit in the letter.

[Berzerker]

No one is arguing the letter should be ignored, but that the spirit informs the letter. The spirit of the law is the reason for the letter of the law, the spirit came first, that's why it's more important. The letter didn't just pop up out of nowhere, it derived from the spirit, the rationale. The 3 strikes law is another example of what happens when the spirit gets lost by adhering to the letter. The spirit was to put away repeat violent offenders, but when the letter includes "felonies" and "misdemeanors", and defines those terms to include an ever growing number of activities that aren't violent offenses, like drug possession, you end up with people serving life for small infractions.

[GePap]

But how do you overcome the problem, Bezerker, of figuring out the spirit? Is the spirit solely waht the authors of the law intended? Or can we figure out the spirit by looking at what the law was written as a response to?

The spirit is even harder interpret than the letter.

[Berzerker]

Both, we'd go back to the reason for the law to see if the letter is remaining faithful. The spirit stays the same even as the letter becomes unfaithful. The problem with the spirit of the law is the interpretation (as you point out), not because it can't be interpreted, but because some people seek to subvert the intent by "interpreting" the intent to suit their goals in violation of the actual intent. The 2nd Amendment is a good example, clearly the Framers wanted an armed citizenry because we the people were to be the main line of defense (militias) and to deter tyrants who might seize control of the government, not so we could hunt. Usually, as is the case with the Framers, the spirit is easily identified through the ample writings of those who offered the original intent.