Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
This explains this discussion better than I have seen elsewhere.
|
Fish delivers again. Thanks for the post, Cyn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
please explain why? When it was first ratified, it was designed to protect the rights of the individual. What has changed since then that it should have the hell amended out of it?
|
Well, nothing has changed with the document itself, I suppose, with the exception of amendments. The problem is that the document isn't very well written when you consider how widely it has been interpreted. There is one thing I can say with confidence about the American Constitution: one cannot always say, "the Constitution says so with no uncertain terms." As far as its function, that hasn't changed either. It is designed to protect the individual and to limit the powers of government. At the same time, its intent is not to render government powerless.
What has changed is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to protect the interests of the individual in a world of increasing complexity, abstraction, and mass communication (not to mention duplicity).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me I'd say that every article, clause, paragraph, and amendment in the bill of rights should have the disclaimer added to it that there is no room for interpretation of ideological reasoning. If it's not written exactly in the statement, then it cannot be assumed.
|
But this is the problem and the point of my previous post. It isn't always clear what exactly is meant in the writing.