That is true. However, I do honestly believe that I have a more proper understanding of the Constitution then a Supreme Court justice that interprets the interstate commerce clause as giving the federal government the power to stop the production of a product (production, mind you, not transportation) because they believe it to be distasteful.
That is your opinion based upon your 18 years of life, education, and work experience. Your sentence sounds like an oversimplification of a complex issue.
So because someone has spent decades in the study of law makes their opinion of the Constitution any more valid than mine?
Yes. First off, the law isn't some surface issue. It requires a lot of reading and studying not only in the basics of law, but in court cases, common law, precedents, the history and evolution of our law, etc. It requires examining the law from many different philosophies, ideas, thoughts, backgrounds. As you say in your post, your knowledge comes from the Heritage Foundation - hardly a diverse course of study in law.
No one can "neutrally" interpret the Constitution.
Agreed. A neutral interpretation without the experience and knowledge behind it would almost certainly be an issue. That is why the justices don't have a "neutral" opinion and that is why we seek out justices with a variety of experiences, backgrounds, ideologies, and educations.
They may be more informed then I am, but if I can clearly lay out why we should follow my interpretation in a debate round (and if I can point to others who thought the same, even better) and link better advantages to it, why should it not be valued?
It is easy to clearly lay out a really bad idea. It can even be easy to link advantages to that bad idea. Look to the foundation of the idea. If it isn't based upon fact or reality - of how things really are - then there are no advantages, it is just opinion, and if we base decisions upon that unstable foundation, we are making poor decisions. The constitutional debating in NCFCA I generally see is what I think leads us to having a rather poor understanding of the constitution and of our government and how it really works. It's an interpretation we want to see, but maybe not the interpretation that others in our representative government want to see. It leads to a rather skewed world view.
Wraith Leader wrote:
"...if you want to tell a story, that's great, but if I wanted to hear fluffy oratory I would be watching C-SPAN."