Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Anybody have thoughts on formal change vs. organic change? (revolutionary change of interpretation vs. evolutionary change?)
|
Since I seem to be the sole rider on the "activism isn't a bad thing" bandwagon, I'll take this on. Evolutionary/organic change is a necessity. The Constitution (USC) can't be and shouldn't be amended to take on every eventuality. It is rightfully a difficult process and not to be taken lightly. Because of that, the USC has to be interpreted by someone and it doesn't necessarily fit. Going back to my blogger example, I don't think that the founding fathers necessarily anticipated this particular phenomenon. We're talking about unpaid journalists who answer to no one and can publish with complete anonymity. Remember that the 1st Amendment sets up journalists as a special class deserving of special consideration and protection. Do bloggers have the right to protect their sources in that light? Can a city or city official demand that a blogger's host (let's assume it's local for arguement's sake) stop providing services? Can bloggers be arrested for being a public nuissance? How does a judge answer these questions? An activist is going to be more concerned with the ramifications of his decisions than a constructionist. The USC has to evolve (through interpretation) in order to keep up with these kinds of changes.
Confession: I almost wrote "through interpretive dance" above. For some reason I almost shot water through my nose at the thought of Ginsberg and Thomas doing freaky, new age dances of the 1st Amendment.
BTW - I'll see what I can find on the 2 bloggers I mentioned when I get home tonight and post links on the 1st Amendment thread. Hopefully the baby and the wife will cooperate long enough to let me sneak down to my office.