A question about the Constitution.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

Is this document an instrument of justice or an instrument of law ?

[lonestarnot]

1. And why can't it be both?

[Ani Yun Wiya]

3. My thoughts lead me to think that it is.

I am wondering what others think about this question.

Thank you for your reply.

[elleng]

4. It is both.

The laws seek to enable just results.

[lonestarnot]

5. For the greater good!

[Sanctified]

2. It's an instrument that defines the powers of government. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

6. what do you see as the difference...?

between an instrument of justice, and an instrument of law? :shrug:

[Ani Yun Wiya]

10. Justice and law are two human concepts.

Quite often "law" serves only the few.
And throughout history there have been many "laws" that were and are patently not in the interests of justice.


So I generally see "law" as the purview or domain of rulers and justice as something that does not neccessarily reside in governments and those "in charge" of populations.

[dysfunctional press]

14. "Quite often "law" serves only the few."

and quite often, justice serves only one.

so?

[Ani Yun Wiya]

15. So...

Which is better ?

1. all law and no justice

or

2. all justice and no law

[dysfunctional press]

16. neither.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

18. so....

what would supersede either of these conditions ?

Keep in mind that one HAS existed and the other has NOT.


Edited to replace a word with the correct word !!!!!

[dysfunctional press]

20. the only one that might have existed is all justice and no law...

back before there were societies and laws were laid down. but i doubt that there was ALL justice even then.

[TexasObserver]

7. It's intended to be both, but LAW first, JUSTICE second.

The Founders created it not to ensure justice, but to craft a more workable government. The civil liberties were an after thought, the result of a demand made by noisy liberals who insisted that the powerful men who created the constitution add some language to protect personal rights. The result was the addition of the Bill of Rights, as a concomitant part of the original document.

Because you use the word "is," however, you necessarily invoke how the constitution functions today, in the present. Due to the control of the federal judiciary by Republicans this century, the constitution is about LAW far more than JUSTICE. As the decisions of such courts have authorized all manner of injustice in the name of LAW, it is very clear that today's living, breathing constitution is almost entirely about LAW, not JUSTICE.

As Obama appoints federal judges who are actually concerned about JUSTICE, that will change, but until there are five reliable votes on the Supreme Court, the constitution will be about LAW much more than JUSTICE.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

11. Very well stated.

I think these appointments are extremely important.

I hope there is a great deal of CHANGE in this area of government in this country.

[Libertyfirst]

8. Both.

The founders desired to achieve justice through the rule of law. However, since the Constitution was and is an imperfect document, like all law because it is written by imperfect humans, it has gaps that prevent it from always insuring justice --which is in instances is difficult to agree upon.

IMHO it does a much better job today than in the beginning. After all, the original did not have the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) and permitted slavery. The post-civil war amendments, later amendments and many SPOTUS decisions have extended the opportunity for justice and for democracy, which in its self usually extends the opportunity for justice.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

12. I agree.

I see this document as a good beginning and in need of improvement as circumstance warrants.

[pinqy]

9. I need your definitions

of "instrument of justice" and "instrument of law." What precisely do you mean by these terms?

Oh, and you'll probably have to give your understanding of "justice" as well. It's a fuzzy term and can mean quite different things to different people.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

13. Definitions.

"instrument of law", to me indicates a means by which the goals of laws are met or put into effect.
"instrument of justice", to me indicates a means by which the goal of justice is met or put into effect.

My understanding of justice is basically "for all; that which is fair and right".

[Greyhound]

17. It defines our government and is a framework to constrain the law,

in an effort to achieve some measure of justice and equality.

It's success in achieving any of those things is marginal at best.

[TexasObserver]

19. The OP is correct that LAW does not assure JUSTICE.

LAW is the system of dealing with civil and criminal issues.

China has LAWS for dealing with those matters, but they are the antithesis of JUSTICE. An accused in China lacks most of the protections we have in our system, which protections are designed to assure that injustice does not occur. Is a defendant presumed innocent? Is a defendant entitled to a jury of his or her peers? Is a defendant entitled to see everything the prosecution has against him? Is a defendant entitled to an attorney, provided by the government, if necessary? Is a defendant entitled to know his rights? Is a defendant entitled to not suffer cruel and unusual punishment? Is a defendant entitled to not be abused while being interrogated by police?

Even in the US, we have many LAWS that are unjust. The standard for reviewing for purposes of reversal the decisions in criminal cases is often appalling. A judge has to give an indigent defendant an attorney at taxpayer expense. Often, he picks one of his toadies - some lawyer who can't attract clients on his own because he's such a sorry attorney. Then the lawyer, who dares not piss off the judge who sends him his business, who the appointing judge effectively makes sure has a living, fails to zealously protect his client's interests. Sometimes, said lawyer actually sleeps through parts of the trial.

JUSTICE would demand we reverse such cases immediately, but that isn't how our stacked legal system works. If you have enough money, you can probably get justice in America. If you're poor, you're screwed.

[annabanana]

21. The Constitution is an aspirational document.

We should always treat it as if it is the Law, and we do that best, it best serves the cause of Justice.

[ThomWV]

22. Little early in the morning for a hard bong hit isn't it? The answer is 'Law'

The constitution is not concerned with justice, it is however the law of the land. It defines the absolute structure of Government and it is law because of its absoluteness. Not a word in the document is concerned with "justice", meaning that somehow it guarantees just deserts, it does not.