Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
I agree that there is a big difference in our world today and theirs. I'm no lawyer but don't a lot of constitutional questions brought up in the courts today get argued by both sides as to what the author's intents were? For example aren't folks on both sides of the gun control issue trying to interpret what the authors of the the second amendment really meant to justify their position. Isn't it logical to try and discern what the writers had in mind by quoting some of their sayings and deeds at the time they wrote it? Then if we believe the amendment no longer suits our modern society we have to amend the constitution (Bill of Rights) to change it.
|
the problem, of course, is who the heck are these "writers?"
I would quote a huge section from Feinman's book,
Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About the American Legal System, but I think I may just provide a reference: p. 19-22.
Keep in mind that the constitution was drafted and argued over by state delegates. You know how Congress passes legislation now? Laws are negotiated and debated, and re-negotiated until nothing like the drafters of any particular bill would say that it contains his or her "original" intent. Do we look at a few men's statements on a particular subject?
Shouldn't we look to all the documents to try and ascertain something like original context? All the minutes of the debates, all the notes from the journals of all the diverse state delegates (who happened to shift over time, as well), and on and on...?
Pick up that book and leaf through those 4 pages so I don't have to type them, please.