Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
to allow, even encourage, judicial interpretation and decisions to 'evolve' as the years go on, you realize that, as is stated in an above post, that it is a double edged sword with the very real possibility of the courts removing rights as well?
|
The amendment process is also a double-edged sword. And under some circumstances, not allowing for an amendment or a judicial interpretation could be a double edged sword.
I believe that, over all, the developments in the amendment and judicial interpretation processes have been beneficial to our nation much more than they've been dangerous, destructive, or harmful. For every "corporations are persons" there are three civil liberties guaranteed by a judge or by the amendment process. I can't even describe how important issues like suffrage are to our striving to be a just nation. The ideal that all people are created equal is truly paramount.
I've not yet read the rest of your post, but I'm going to assume you're going to name one or more specific cases of judicial interpretation that you (and even I) may find unjust. I readily admit there's a risk involved, but that risk is outweighed by the greater risk of a stagnated, outdated Constitution. I want our most current understanding of justice to be reflected in our laws, and the only way that's possible is by allowing our laws to change over time to suit the world they seek to make just.