Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn
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?
|
maybe in regards to this particular law, yes. But over the last 150 years, can we not see many examples of judicial tyranny in the guise of rulings using the 'living constitution' theory? For instance, the 14th Amendment was ratified to specifically overrule dred scott, so what did the supreme court do? the incorporation doctrine. This was done using 'living constitution' theory, IMO, and every case that incorporated a part of the bill of rights since then has been done using 'living constitution' theory.
__________________
"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."
|