|
dk, I tried to engage, as I suppose I fall in the camp of people who believe the Constitution is (nominally) a living document.
I'm just not seeing the connection between that belief and the Arizona law. An abuse of the 'living Constitution' would be something more egregious, and dare I say, federal.
In this case, Arizona politicians are acting fast-and-loose with the law for personal gains or desires, desires I believe are driven by simple xenophobia. I don't expect this to stand US Constitutional muster, just as I didn't think Washington DC's ban. It takes time to revoke these patently ridiculous laws, sure, but their existence is an indication of power-hungry politicians, not some inherent flaw with living Constition theory. If there were challenged to the SCOTUS and found Constitional based on a contemporary reading of the Constition, then you'd have a legitimate grievance. That would be justices using a 'living document' paradigm to irrevocably change the nature of the country. We're a long shot from there, aren't we?
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
|