Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
All true, but the case law (court decisions) often go back and forth as different judges make rulings or one judge later changes his mind. My point is that the case rulings are temporary thoughts of some individuals while the text of the Constitution has only changed 27 times in the history of our country. It is more stable and when court decisions or federal statutes are made which conflict with it, those decisions and statutes get struck down.
The same is true for the NFHS committee members who may issue a case play or an official interpretation. Other people may or may not be in agreement as these rulings are subject to who sits on the NFHS rules committee at any one time. On the other hand the text of the rule book is less fleeting. Obviously the committee makes rule changes all the time and with much more frequency than the US Constitution is amended, but their rulings still needed to be based upon what is written in the rules book. If they issue something which is obviously in contradiction to the text of the rules, then logic dictates that the rule takes priority. Afterall we must enforce the rules as written!  |
I think we might be comparing things differently. I look at the constitution similarly to the 20 Basketball Rules Fundamentals. Those are the basics; they have not changed in a while. The rules themselves are similar to the laws Congress passes - they might have changed based upon who is in power at the time, but they still need to conform the "basics", the rule fundamentals or the constitution. The constitution isn't concerned with, for example, how many years a person should be sentenced for a crime, just as the fundamentals aren't concerned with the specifics of a penalty (OOB, FT's, number of FT's, etc.). The case plays then expand on the rules, just like court cases expand on the laws that have been passed.