Bostic logic

[billcu1]

I am sure many are aware about the majority in *Bostic V Schaefer —F.3rd— (4th Cir. 2014) * and it seems logically confusing. The court declared that certain constitutional amendments contain doctrines that are above politics and that’s the way it is. Sounds sometimes like some dogmas, say it’s intrinsic and leave it at that. ipse dixit. If the 14th amendment exists because it was ratified by the people. How can it declare things that are above politics and the vote of the people. I do not mean this to be a political question but one of logic.

Bill

 

[Rhubarb]

I think the problem that is cropping up is ambiguity in terms. Pragmatically, one could say that certain protections of the Constitution are above politics, such as the freedom of speech. But we all know that the Constitution can be amended which is a political activity.

The language of fundamental rights versus granted rights and what it means to be above or from politics isn’t well defined I think. When a judge says “X is above politics” theyes could be meaning different things.

 

[Robert_Filmer]

The word “politics” often has a weird meaning. Perhaps Constitutional Amendments are not “political”?