Take politics, interpretation out of our laws, Constitution

"Awful" once meant full of awe or inspiring wonder. Now it means bad, ugly, or unappealing.

Likewise, "protest" today means to disapprove, but once meant "to make a solemn declaration."

If our laws, and particularly our Constitution, are to be consistent in their meaning, then they must be understood by all literate people and not subject to slow changes in the meaning of words over time, nor the present-day judicial interpretation, but rather by what those who wrote the words meant at the time they were written. Otherwise, time and judges become legislators.

If people of goodwill really want to take politics out of our laws and Constitution, we must agree to accept the words as they were meant when written. When our laws need to change with the times, it should never be by some twisted, biased interpretation from politically motivated judges, or a president with a "pen and a phone."

Law changes are made by a defined process of legislation, and the Constitution is changed by a prescribed amendment process; both involve all citizens through their elected representatives.

Our nation's body politic is angry as hell at the judicial and executive rule by fiat that has occurred in the last several years.

This is allowed by a complicit Congress, ignoring its duty to check and balance this behavior by presidents and judges, legislating by interpretation.

The president has executed his required duty to nominate a new Supreme Court justice while ignoring any "advice" from the Senate, and his own statements when a senator, and the Senate will now do its job as to "consent," or likely not, and let the people decide in the next election.

Maybe in the years since Democrats politicized the process and made Bork a verb we may finally get it right.

David R. Kraner

Palmetto

This story was originally published March 27, 2016 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Take politics, interpretation out of our laws, Constitution ."