Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
What you fail to realise is that things evolve. Speech now means different things than it did in the 18th century, so the judiciary is charged with interpriting the language of the constitution to fit with current situations.
|
and what you fail to realize is that by allowing, endorsing, and promoting the government that we created to 'reinterpret' things in the constitution with each new evolution, you are giving up your rights and freedoms. It's how we end up with exceptions to every amendment like 'well regulated militia' to mean the national guard when the guard was not even an idea when the 2nd was written, or how the 4th Amendment can be whittled down because an epidemic of stupidity in drunk driving demands we give up more protection, or the commerce clause power gets expanded because the government wants to control what you can grow on your own property for your own use, or how the political turmoil of todays century can be used to reduce freedom of speech to 'free speech zones'. Is this the kind of 'living document' you think the founders envisioned when they wrote it, after having a central government do the exact same thing to them that inevitably led to a revolutionary war? I think not.
__________________
"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."
|