Question 1. Which of the following statements best describes the approach to constitutional interpretation that you believe judges should follow? Explain why you think your answer is the correct one.
A. Judges should apply the intentions of the framers, as best as they can determine it.
B. Judges should look at the words of the provision in question and base their decisions as best they can on the plain meaning of the language.
C. Judges should generally follow precedent (the decisions in previous cases under the same constitutional provisions) as much as possible, looking to the text and intentions of the framers only when the case law is unclear.
Question 2. Evaluate and discuss the following view, and state whether it would be accepted as generally correct by most lawyers and judges: "A person who has both rights and duties" defines the most basic concept of the law.
Remember, the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, are a recitation of guarantees of rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it simply recites what were and are recognized as the rights of citizens-and that enumeration of rights doesn't mean that there are not other rights retained by the people, as is stated in the Ninth Amendment.
Most of a person's legal duties are duties to abstain from certain actions, for example, to abstain from theft, harmful physical violence, or deception-for-profit. But a few legal duties require positive action, (i.e., to remove from one's yard an attractive but dangerous object which might injure another person, and to pay income tax).
3. Are our rights unlimited, e.g., the right to free speech, or any other Amendment witin the Bill of Rights? Please talk about how most of our rights are limited, e.g., can't incite violence with speech. Do you agree with limiting some of our rights, why or why not?