Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
I always thought that the writers of the constitution realized that the document would have to be "a living document", that is why they gave us a method to amend it when necessary. I think they wanted it to be rather difficult to amend and did not intend it to be interpreted widely different depending on the current trends. I think Scalia's position is probably close to this.
|
I agree with you, and that's one of the things that I admire about Scalia - his consistency across the issue to decend into activism. I may not alway agree with it, but I certainly admire it. I also agree that the "difficult to amend" sentiment, but interpretation is completely different. They intended it to be interpreted it the way they wrote it - unfortunately, we can't apply late 18th Century printing technology to the internet, so we're stuck having to rely on the courts deciding if bloggers deserve the same 1st Amendment rights as traditional journalists.