Ron DeSantis

Rank 21 of 47

Score 30

Yes — and when it involves constitutional interpretation it has the effect of leaving the people with no adequate recourse short of enacting a constitutional amendment.

You can’t have a system in which five lawyers on the Court can de facto amend the Constitution but the

@Nk5320

24d

@RonDeSantis The problem with Living Constitutionalism is we really have no standard by which we can judge the Court’s interpretation. It makes everything subjective.

12/6/2025, 2:36:39 PM

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about constitutional interpretation and the role of the Supreme Court, which are significant public issues. The tone is analytical and critical, focusing on the implications of judicial decisions and the challenges of constitutional amendments.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on a critical analysis of judicial processes, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement engages in constructive criticism of judicial interpretation without resorting to personal attacks, aligning with the principle of constructive dialogue. [+1]
Principle 7:
I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
The statement upholds the principles of free speech by responsibly discussing constitutional interpretation and its implications, demonstrating integrity in public discourse. [+1]