3 ms·

I think the problem might be that plain words are still really spongy? A simple statement like "no vehicles allowed on public grass" isn't actually all that sim

by vqc 9y ago

I think the problem might be that plain words are still really spongy? A simple statement like "no vehicles allowed on public grass" isn't actually all that simple. What happens when the words of the constitution apply to 95% of a given situation? 85%? 10%? Is it better to amend the constitution every time there's an edge case? A lot of time you can just put a catchall textarea to cover all the rest of your input edge cases. For the law, that textarea is where all the action happens.

astura 9y ago
>I think the problem might be that plain words are still really spongy? Many people make the argument that that's not a bug, its an intentional feature. As in, the Constitution was left open to interpretation on purpose. You can also make the argument that even if it was an intentional feature, we've taken it too far.
- vqc 9y ago
  The founders did leave a mechanism for amending the constitution. It is very difficult to use. Do you think they underestimated the difficult of amending the Constitution using the process they suggested? Or maybe they didn't foresee having SCOTUS be the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution?