tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post5982264682137534954..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: It's All About InterpretationJack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-52279921198242289122009-11-20T16:19:33.761-06:002009-11-20T16:19:33.761-06:00Isn't the problem that "interpreting a co...Isn't the problem that "interpreting a constitutional provision in a way that conflicts with that intent" comes in shades of gray rather than the posited either / or. And still, in any any event, the question is whether text has a "spirit" that can inform how we interpret the text today. Did Thomas Jefferson really mean that all men are created equal? Did he intend to include women and slaves? Is that even a relevant question? Aren't the words bigger than his intention? I think the critical mass of thinking Americans today believe women and slaves (or their economic and cultural equivalent in today's world) are included and that the words can be interpreted far beyond what Thomas Jefferson may or may not have intended when he penned them. Indeed, the written word should not be limited by limited imagination of a mere man that may have penned those words, but should be subject to interpretation and expansion by the moral imagination of the ongoing community. That is the way any words -- whether Bible, Constitution or legislation -- have continuing meaning.<br /><br />In writing this, I was reminded for some reason (perhaps a digression) of the following Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote in his Christmas 1942 letter:<br /><br /> There remains an experience of incomparable value. We have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcast, the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the oppressed, the reviled — in short, from the perspective of those who suffer. The important thing is that neither bitterness nor envy should have gnawed at the heart during this time, that we should have come to look with new eyes at matters great and small, sorrow and joy, strength and weakness, that our perception of generosity, humanity, justice, and mercy should have become clearer, freer, less corruptible. We have to learn that personal suffering is a more effective key, a more rewarding principle for exploring the world in thought and action than personal good fortune.<br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-87893698634978592062009-11-20T15:43:10.903-06:002009-11-20T15:43:10.903-06:00Professor,
Thanks for the interesting and provoca...Professor,<br /><br />Thanks for the interesting and provocative post.<br /><br />Berman's conclusion is based on the faulty premise that originalists "contend that judges owe fidelity to original meaning (or intent, or the like) to the exclusion of all other considerations."<br /><br />What originalists do believe, however, is that when the original intent is reasonably clear, we should refrain from interpreting a constitutional provision in a way that conflicts with that intent.<br /><br />Isn't this statutory construction 101?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07265281339588174852noreply@blogger.com