Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out, that is unless you don't choose to.
you say that the constitution MUST be interpreted because the plain text of words has lost their meaning. this would indicate that there is nothing of any other kind of written text by the framers to explain what they meant by their words in the constitution.
so, that in mind, how is the word 'stop' accepted to be just what it says, stop? it's because you were taught what the word meant, and that it would mean that for your entire lifetime. well that's what happened with the constitution. before it was ratified, commentators went to all 13 colonies and told the people exactly what it all meant, before they voted on it. there were no hidden surprises.
so, does the constitution mean what it meant when it was written, or do you want to change it to suit your own ideals?
|
You do realize that
you interpret the constitution when you read it, don't you? Because reading is fundamentally and unavoidably an act of interpretation?
I think when you read "interpretation" you interpret its meaning as "motherfuckers are diluting the holy written word of the founders". Which is pretty funny when interpreted in the context of your argument- which is apparently that interpretation is wrong.
Do you understand that you've interpreted the meaning of the plain text word "interpret" to mean something completely different than (but not unrelated to) its actual usage in the context of this discussion? If you're having trouble interpreting plain text written in the language of your time, how on earth can you think that it's easy as pie to "correctly" interpret a document that was written in the legalese of the 18th century?