For your next discussion board assignment we will continue with the theme of interpretation. In the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2015, the decision turned on how to read the Act itself, whether by the letter of the law as written, or whether the ‘intent’ of the lawmakers should be considered. Those who read the Act in such a way that only the actual words of the ACA were important voted against the Act, while those who took into consideration the legislative intent of Congress voted in favor of the ACA.
Attached is a file with two brief newspaper articles that concern the interpretation of laws and the Constitution. They outline differing points of view. What are they? Do you find one more convincing than the other? Do you find one more problematic than the other?
Like last time, please post your responses to these articles. In this assignment you have two tasks:
1) Please state whether you find the arguments and beliefs of one side to be more persuasive than the other, and why. What might one interpretation mean for reading parts of the Constitution? Please try to elaborate and use examples to make your point clear.
2) After reading the primary postings of other students, please respond critically to the opinion of at least THREE other students. State whether you agree or disagree and whether and how their comment has forced you to reevaluate your own analysis.
Your postings do not need to be lengthy. You should be able to summarize your thoughts in a paragraph or two. There is no right answer. What I am looking for is simply your own evaluations of the two positions.