Protestant Vs Catholic?

Last week during class we discussed the difference between a Catholic and Protestant position of constitutional interpretation. These two positions are guided by two questions one being the source of doctrine and the other being who has the ultimate authority to interpret.  If you are a Protestant, then you believe that the source of doctrine is in the constitutional text alone. Also, you believe that the ultimate authority to interpret rests on  “the legitimacy of individualized interpretation. On the other hand, a Catholic holds a vastly different position. A Catholic position states the the source of doctrine is based off of the constitutional text plus unwritten tradition as well. As far as, the ultimate authority a Catholic believes the supreme court “is the dispenser of ultimate interpretation” The book does not keep it simple. It goes on to describe the various combinations of such positions. The positions are as follows; protestant-protestant, protestant- catholic, catholic-catholic, and catholic-protestant. The make up of these, consists on how you answer the two questions mentioned earlier. Who has ultimate authority to interpret the text and what is the source of doctrine? If one thinks that the only the text alone makes up source of doctrine but you think the supreme court has the ultimate authority to interpret then you are a protestant- catholic. This provides us with more insight into what we have been learning about these past weeks. We have been purely focused on how to interpret the constitution but we never really touched on who should do the interpreting, we all just assumed the supreme court. Many like myself, did not think anyone could do the interpreting besides the supreme court. It only made sense to me, these people who have had extensive practice in such a field of law be the ones who do the interpreting. Personally, I would not want a regular person to decide my case, especially if it had to go through the process to arrive at the supreme court. As far as how to interpret the text, i have grown to the idea that the constitutional text should be followed but i have to agree that there is an unwritten tradition that should be taken into consideration as well. Granite we have methods like the amendment process that allow the people to change the constitution if need be. However, realistically this process, although done in the past, is extremely difficult and would require political assistance. A change in law requires the congress to propose it,  the constitution reads “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution…” Lets face it, our congress is politically biased which makes this process an even harder one that what it was intended to be in the first place. America has grown since the times the framers made the constitution, the laws of America should resemble that growth.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply