Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
|
Unfortunately, it does matter what new technologies and innovations come along. The internet alone has created a whole new class of journalists (one could argue) that would include bloggers and even members of this board (given a broad enough interpretation). There's also the whole debate over whether or not political contributions are free speach (granted this one is settled although there are lots of issues arising from it). I don't think that the framers could have ever imagined these two issues, and both of them are hot buttons today. The "living" constitution is the one that has to deal with them, and there's nothing explicitely contained in the First Amendment about either issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
|
The issue that you raise here is unsettle law. There are competing decisions, and it's up to Scalia etal to make the final call. That's their role in the process - the ultimate arbiters. The only way that various viewpoints are going to get in front of SCOTUS is for the underlying courts to make decisions which then need review. As far as I'm concerned, you've given an example of my arguement in action, only during the construction phase of it.