Sunday A.
asked • 01/27/21Please,what is constitutional Implications?
Constitutional implications
More
1 Expert Answer
Raymond B. answered • 01/27/21
Tutor
5
(2)
Math, microeconomics or criminal justice
very similar to but very different from constitutional inferences.
See the Big Bang TV show where Zack says "are you implying I'm stupid?" Then Prof. Sheldon
responds; "No. We're inferring it. You implied it"
Irrelevant? distracting side comment? Maybe, but courts and attorneys are hyper legalistic including how you interpret constitutional issues.
Is the law, statute, Act of Congress, legislative act or executive's edict "constitutional" ? IF not it's invalid, of no effect. Courts of conservative bent look to the original intent, the words' meaning at time of their enactment. Liberal judges prefer to inject modern values to "interpret" and decide whether an act violates the Constitution.
a word or phrase.
Sunday A.
Thank you sir. But, I still don't understand it. What does constitutional implications of someone means?
Report
01/27/21
Abby K.
tutor
Simply put, it means that the issue at hand is related to the Constitution. There's a question as to whether or not a law, policy, or action is in keeping with the what the Constitution intended or not. That is, whether or not it's "Constitutional." Remember that the Constitution was written a long time ago. The authors were wise enough to know that the world would change, and for that reason some of the rules are a bit vague and open to interpretation. Most of the laws we have today are based on a court/judge's interpretation of what the Constitution means. Once a declaration is made about what the Constitution intended, this becomes precedent and future rulings on the legitimacy of laws, law suits, and criminal cases in the same category will follow this precedent (ie follow this same path of reasoning.) That is ... until someone questions whether or not a law is still legit and it goes through the courts. Eventually, the Supreme Court might decide that the law or ruling should be changed creating a new precedent.
This is why the 2nd Amendment (The Right to Bear Arms) is controversial. Some believe that the law is outdated and was specific to the time when British forces would simply walk in to people's homes to take them over. Remember that in the colonies at the time the British troops were the police ... there was no one else to come to your aid. Therefore, people needed to defend themselves. Of course, at the time weapons were much more low tech ... no one had machine guns ... and therefore not as dangerous as they are today.
Others believe they're given the right to have guns by the Constitution and no one should take that away from them.
In the middle of the debate is gun control, which basically means some people who demonstrate they will use a gun responsibly may own specific varieties of guns. There are many versions of this, some more or less permissive. However, traditionalists believe there should not be any limitations at all.
The same goes for Freedom of Speech. Some think this means they should be able to say whatever they want whenever they want to. However, threatening or inciting violence or treason, or spreading damaging lies about someone (defamation) are illegal. Further, curtailing someone's free speech is only illegal if the government does it, not if, say, a private school or privately owned book company does.
Hope that helps!
Report
02/03/21
Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.
Ask a question for free
Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.
OR
Find an Online Tutor Now
Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.
Sunday A.
Thank you sir. But, I still don't understand it. What does constitutional implications of someone means?01/27/21