Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
dk: i am confused. you seemed to argue my point....
but somehow arrive at the assumption first that some kind of stasis was possible for meanings and that second even if it is not possible (you cant abstract legal language from normal usage, like it or not--not entirely) that a fiction created specifically around/for the constitution that would make it static linguistically is somehow desirable.
i dont understand.
|
yeah, I didn't explain that very well at all. sorry.
basically what i was trying to say is that to interpret the constitution, you MUST use the definitions and terms that they used. You can't try to apply todays definitions to their terms or we end up with something that doesn't work as originally intended.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|