[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the implication of all of his positions is that he has a superior interpretation of the Constitution than the current federal judiciary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll venture that I think the average American could read the Constitution and come up with better, more commonsense interpretations than some interpretations that have been devised by the current or recent federal judiciaries, especially as regards the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Heck I'll go one step further and guess that my Irish Wolfhound could come up with more sensible interpretations too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point was (and, frankly, your response just reinforces it) that what is a "good" interpretation or a "right" one isn't some objective standard. You will, of course, find them right if you agree with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's some truth to what you say, but that isn't the same as saying every interpretation is entirely subjective or that there is "no" objective interpretation. IMO there are better (more likely to be correct) interpretations and worse (less likely to be correct) interpretations (of course this doesn't just apply to the U.S. Constitution, but to many documents, laws, and even any pieces of literature).

One can't logically and convincingly jump from "there exists some subjectivity" to "everything is entirely subjective". Just because there exist various opinions on a matter and because subjectivity plays some role in those opinion, doesn't mean that no objective analysis is possible, nor does it mean that no analysis can likely be better or likely be more correct than another analysis. '

If that were a true principle, then there would be little point in having SAT or LSAT test questions involving interpretation of written material, because all interpretations are subjective anyway so there can be no right or wrong answers. I doubt you would take that position, correct?

As for the Commerce Clause, IMO my dog would have a better chance of randomly picking the correct interpretation, than SCOTUS did by deriving (actually manipulating) it.

Thanks for reading.