Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I have to disagree with the "living document" interpretation, though. The farther we get from 1789, the farther that the Constitution has to stretch to cover the issues of the day. Obviously it's not a real "living" document, although Scalia's remarks seem directed at that idea. Rather, the framework constructed by it is flexible enough to allow for the necessities of the day. It is by no means a perfect document, but unless we are ready to scrap it and revise it to include issues like fully automatic weapons, abortion, undelcared wars and foreign and domestic terrorism, we have to make what we have work.
|
There is no need to scrap anything, even because of issues like 'automatic arms, abortion, undeclared wars, and terrorism. The founders were not ignorant when they crafted the bill of rights or the constitution. They experienced firsthand what abuses could be wrought when the power was in the governments hands and not the peoples. It shouldn't matter what new technology or innovation comes in to being, the constitution and BoR is set up in a way that those powers are reserved for the people and the government has their powers supplied by the people. The only limitation is that a legislature or executive branch cannot violate the constitution. Something it does all the time now with 'living document' claims.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
The "hodgepodge mix of interpretations" that my esteemd collegue dksuddeth Thank you good sir mentioned is the natural order of progression that the framers intended. The very nature of the American people has changed in the last 217 years. We're no longer a nation of "gentlemen farmers", and I know that the vast majority of my ancestors weren't here when the Constitution was ratified. The vast majority of Americans agree that their daily rights have remained sacrosanct their entire lives, and I don't see any examples to the contrary.
|
I disagree that 'mix of interpretations' is the natural order of progression. The constitution and BoR is a declaration of rights that are pre-existing and powers supplied to a governing body. Mixing interpretations (forgive my gun law decisions here, just making a point), For example, in the western states, no individual has standing to raise a Second Amendment claim, since in 1996 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment only addresses a state's right, yet the fifth circuit has ruled implicitly that the 2nd is an individual right and it's been affirmed by the fifth circuit court of appeals, we have a 'mix of interpretations'. this is just one example of hundreds out there.