I agree that there will always be a need for interpretation; there will always be unforseen situations.
For example, the current Constitution gives Congress the power to “provide and maintain a Navy” and to “raise and support Armies” So one can ask whether the U.S. Air Force is unconstitutional.
There is no need to bring L(l)ibertarianism into it.
If X number of legislators vote on a law, each one of them–in voting–is passing on the Constitutionality of that law. Very simple. Note, too, that judicial review was not part of the Constitution–it wasn’t even (widely) recognized as vesting such power in the courts at the time of Marbury.
That idea is so simple that it not only eliminates the need for a Supreme Court, it actually eliminates the need for a constitution itself-“If we say it’s Constitutional, then it’s Constitutional!”
By what mechanism are ambiguities “bounced back” to the legislature?
shrug That’s how England works.
I might add that there’s nothing in the US Constitution which says the Supreme Court is the arbiter of whether or not a statute violates the Constitution. Judicial review was by no means a foregone conclusion, and didn’t exist until 1803, long after the first law that clearly did violate the Constitution.
Stop it. That’s not what you asked. It was “Is it actually possible to draft a Libertarian Constitution that is so clear and unambiguous that the need for interpretation by a body like the Supreme Court would be totally unnecessary?” It was intended as a gotcha in response to a post that you misinterpreted. You have since backtracked to frame it as a request for Libertarian constitutional principles–just so you can understand them, of course. This is silly. You did NOT ask, “What might a Libertarian constitution look like, so I might understand how a Libertarian society might operate.” And when you ask for an unambiguous article–and I give you one–clearly that’s not what you wanted, since it offered you no opportunity to prove, well, to prove something about Libertarianism’s shortcomings because (like every other political philosophy) it doesn’t lend itself to an airtight lack of ambiguity in expressing its principles.
This is where you betray your intentions. You don’t want to understand libertarian principles so much as you want to throw rocks at a straw man. I don’t think the Libertopia constitution would be unambiguous, and I never suggested it would be. So why did you think it necessary to ask me to defend the notion? More fundamentally, why the hell is that an indictment of Libertarianism, a concession that its constitution, like all others, could not avoid all ambiguity? If you just want to understand what might be in a Libertarian constitution, why are you harping on the apparent need for it to be devoid of ambiguity?
Whatever.
Can any Libertarian give me an example of what could be an article of the Libertarian Constitution?
If you are asking about an unambiguous one, the answer is no.
Give me the best you’ve got, then, if it is any different than the ones we currently have.
So…one self-described Libertarian said something ridiculous, and you decided the start a thread about it?
I decided I would like to find out what a Libertarian Constitution might consist of. Before I posted this thread, I looked up “Libertarian Constitution” on Google…and couldn’t find any examples of a sample L.C.
As I read explanation, every legal dispute would have to be voted on by the legislature. Or if not every dispute, then pretty much every appeal. What could possibly go wrong?
But Congress is pretty much bogged down as it is. Could they handle the extra work?
Edited to add: And without precedent, would the Constitution be reinterpreted every time power changed hands?
I’m not a Libertarian, but I’ll give it a shot.
Article 1, Section 1: 1 + 1 = 2
Well, the unambiguous Constitution would have to be written in lojban obviously. Making the fictional country both libertarian *and *nerd utopia.
In Libertarian Paradise, since Congress is not going to be overburdened with making laws, it may as well function as an appellate court.
I’d guess that the farthest a Libertopia would get toward providing any social services or safety net is to provide every adult citizen with a pair of dueling pistols.
I’m not a big-L Libertarian. I think our Constitution could be improved, but not by much. It’s weakness is also its strength. It doesn’t attempt to provide unambiguous content, leaving short term uncertainty, but the long term opportunity to continuously fine tune based on peoples evolving ethos. Sadly so few people understand that, or appreciate the genius of our founders. The result of this is the slow erosion of the system of checks and balances which maintain the Constitution as the ultimate law.
I think there is only one interpretation of that, forced population control. That set of symbols could not represent anythinge else.
Nor I.
I think any constitution written by mortal pen is inevitably going to be open to some level of interpretation, especially as time passes. A significant amount of the perceived ambiguity in the present US constitution comes from time passing and language changing; phrases and ideas that were once commonly understood become less so over time.
Adding:
No written document is going to be so airtight that people can’t eventually reinterpret it if they really want to. The present US Constitution. as written and as the framers intended it, is very libertarian in its nature. Over time, society has decided that wasn’t what it wanted, and has gradually reinterpreted accordingly.
That’s always going to be the tension, and the framers recognized it: any government, no matter how well-designed, is going to inevitably try to outstrip the bounds you place on it. In the last ~150 years, the power of government in this country has grown, in large part because most people were okay with it. As the national mood changes, the legal interpretations follow.