|
dk--to be clear, the logic of these responses from you is very simple and clear. so much so in the way of simplicity that i have a hard time imagining that you actually think this way---whence the responses from me. i'm trying to figure it out, how this position you occupy holds together. i don't think it does really, but that's a different matter, for another time or not as the case may be.
in the case of guns, your strict construction viewpoint is coherent because it is either a screen for or an aspect of a political viewpoint that is entirely outside the arguments that you make about the constitution---in that, you argue for the narrowest possible (tipping into the arbitrary) interpretation of the 2nd amendment because you are freaked out about change to it--and so are freaked out about the constitutional system in the name of the constitution.
so i assumed that there was something comparable on welfare programs, that the real issue for you is outside the argument that you're making, but shapes that argument by giving it a direction. my sense is that you don't want to come out and say why you oppose welfare programs, if you in fact do, on other than strict construction grounds--but i've found in general that's typically the case for folk who occupy that position on the constitution. it lets them argue against things without avowing where that argument's coming from, what animates or shapes it.
but it's hard to say the extent to which this is speculative (the motive business just above), so i just put it out as a reading of your sentences with no particular weight beyond that.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|