|
dk: no, it wouldn't.
not in the way you would prefer.
besides, if you want to play the intent game, why are there so few documents, and such incomplete documentation, concerning the constitutional convention itself if the idea was to generate a future situation in which the proceedings would be set up as THE regulative interpretive framework within which the constitutional system itself operated? my understanding is that the idea at the time was that the proceedings NOT be used in the way you propose. the idea was that what mattered was the document as frame for the unfolding/development/interpretation of law--which necessarily involves an unfolding/development/interpretation of the frame.
the partial records of the convention, the federalist papers ARE NOT LAW.
i hope that is clear enough.
your position on this is simply untenable conceptually, untenable methodologically, and what is more undesirable legally and politically.
what it seems to me you really want to do is throw out the entire american common law system and replace it with a version of the civil law tradition--but the fetishism of the constitution around which this desire seems to hinge prevents you from saying as much. so you go for a parallel type of system that you can pretend is consistent with what exists. it isnt. yours is a radical position, one that is connected to a politics that you are not particularly forthcoming about, except when it comes to guns. even then, you prefer to present your positions on guns as if they were not embedded in a wider context. this makes little sense to me, but that's fine.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|