kerry phyillaier…

Here are some of the approaches by which the Justices might go about their interpretation (as taken from Wikipedia) and my corresponding guess of the outcome based on the approach:

Strict constructionism – “a philosophy of judicial interpretation and legal philosophy that limits judicial interpretation to the meanings of the actual words and phrases used in law, and not on other sources or inferences. Adherents look strictly at the text in question rather than relying either on legislative intent (as gleaned from contemporaneous commentaries or legislative debate) or on metaphysical ideas such as natural law.”

My guess: ruling in favor of House of Representative’s position.

Original intent – “maintains that in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding.”

My guess: ruling in favor of Senate’s position. ( Assuming the framer’s upon being called as witnesses, or upon review of their writings at the time the 1987 Constitution was being drafted, give the impression of a consensus as to this intent.)

Original meaning – “is a Formalist theory, and a logical extension of Textualism. Textualists believe that a statute means whatever the plain meaning of its words is, as opposed to other potential meanings, such as what those who drafted the law or voted for it intended it to say… contends that the terms…should be interpreted as meaning what they meant when they were ratified, which is to say, it asks the question: ‘What would a Reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?’”

My guess: ruling in favor of House of Representative’s position. I think this approach adheres most closely to the line of reasoning you have adopted above.

Living Constitution – “Generally regarded as a liberal judicial philosophy, its central premise is that the Constitution should be seen, to some degree, as dynamic. As the direct counter to originalism, the judicial philosophy centered on meaning at the time of constitutional ratification, a Living Constitution suggests a document whose meaning is often dependent on the age and society in which it applies.”

My guess: Provision under contention will be considered the subject of a political question which requires a plebiscite in order to determine the currently accepted meaning.

If the Court has common sense (which is hard to define), they will rule in favor of the Senate, but there is also enough room to rule in favor of the House if the Court adopts (consciously or inadvertently) some sort of tunnel vision. To me, the fairest ruling would be to declare the matter a political question subject to the people’s judgement.

maybe inspired by mlq3’s past post on ‘bastusan’.

Im hoping the SC interprets it your way, cvj, but Im just pointing out that the fight is going to be tough.