4 ms·
It's not a false dichotomy at all. Give the words a plain reading. If you don't like the plain reading, amend it. There are, after all, three different ways
by dbcurtis 10y ago
It's not a false dichotomy at all. Give the words a plain reading. If you don't like the plain reading, amend it. There are, after all, three different ways to get it amended, it has beed done many times in the past, notably by the main authors before the ink was barely dry.
The only other option is to appoint some small pool of people to try to get us all to collectively pretend that the words mean something other than what they plainly say. That is the path to the rule of man, and I for one prefer the rule of law. There is no middle ground, give or take clarifications. And for clarifications, the burden of proof must be on the government, or the system fails.
- SwellJoe 10y ago"Give the words a plain reading." Spoken like a true fundamentalist. I've heard that exact phrase from evangelical street preachers.
- diggernet 10y agoNo doubt your street preachers always follow it up with "If you don't like the plain reading, amend it", too.
- SwellJoe 10y agoI fear I'm perpetually doomed to spend at least some of my time online talking past Constitutional scholars as they talk past me. We're simply not having the conversation you think we're having. I understand what you're saying; and have understood it every time you and dbcurtis have said it (in a variety of ways). I am disagreeing with the underlying premise of it. I am not disagreeing that the constitution has built-in mechanisms to change it. I am disagreeing with you that the government the constitution has defined has any ethical right to govern people who did not consent to it. It doesn't matter if it can theoretically be changed, it is premised on a notion I reject.