I damn well think that their interprietation is:
a) WRONG
b) politically motivated.
The assumption is that Atlasia started out as the United States, with the same programs in place. If their interpreitation is correct, hundreds of programs, including things such as student grants which are specifically targeted toward a certain group.
This is wrong, and I think it is dishonest of them to claim that their was no political motivation behind this ruling.
Well, of course you think their interpretation is wrong. Likewise, they think it's right. What makes the both of you think those things? Your ideology and beliefs. Because of this, zero is the amount of agreement that you and they are likely to ever get on matters such as this.
When a statement is vague and requires interpretation, of course their ideology is going to come into play. It has to. They have nothing else to go off of. Their job is to read the Constitution, and only the Constitution, and consequently make a decision based off of the Constitution. A liberal is going to interpret a vague section in a liberal way and a conservative is going to interpret a vague section in a conservative way. It's unavoidable, really.
The solution, as I said, is to resolve the ambiguity to prevent them from having to make that interpretation. If it's a clear-cut "yes" or "no" answer, that's the only time at which ideology will not come into play. Asking someone to interpret something while disregarding what they believe in life is asking for an impossibility.
