Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

As a "living" document, and since the SCOTUS has ultimate
interpretation (and re-interpretation), the Constitution remains ope
to discussion.

And that's my final answer ...

Exactly! The Constitution is like the Bible. It doesn't matter what
the document SAYS, the only thing that counts in what the document
MEANS.

With the Constitution, the authority for deciding what the document
means is vested with the Supreme Court. In the case of the Bible,
it's a little more complicated.

I agree about the Constitution and SCOTUS.
But it's not complicated with the bible at all. It's a document
written by humans, and sanctioned by this, that or another
"authority". If you want to take the word in some way, you have to
"believe". Nothing wrong with that, unless it impacts others
adversely. Period.

Uh, no. There are at least three distinct methods.

In the Jewish view, the authority and ability to reach a ruling is contained
in the text itself and that text devolves its technique thusly: "If a matter
comes before you that is too hard for you to judge, take the matter to the
sages of the generation and be bound by their decision."( See Deut 17:8.)
[This probably comes closest to our current civil law].

In the Catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is vested with
the Church as an institution.

In the non-catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is vested
with the individual as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Most of the time these three methods reach the same answer (i.e., "Thou
shalt not murder"), but sometimes not. Consider abortion:

* Under Jewish law, abortion is sometimes mandated!
* Under the Catholic Canon, since no good can come from an immoral act,
abortion is always banned.
* In the non-catholic tradition, I know of no organized Protestant church
that has an official position on the subject, leaving the decision, instead,
up to the individual.