4 ms·
> Now, if you’re a “living Constitution” guy and think that the constitution means whatever you want it to mean in the present time, that’s fine. As opposed to
by madhadron 7y ago
> Now, if you’re a “living Constitution” guy and think that the constitution means whatever you want it to mean in the present time, that’s fine.
As opposed to what? Textualist? The Constitution is not an unambiguous, coherent document that can have a rigorous interpretation without masses of precedent and case law. It was intentionally ambiguous so that broad swathes of people would vote in favor of it, thinking it said what they wanted. We've been arguing about it ever since. The usual criterion is to maintain stability so we know what to expect, but occasionally someone manages to engineer a major reversal, like the reading of the 2nd amendment in the 20th century switching to allow everyone and his brother to have firearms without restraint.
I'm more of a Jeffersonian in this: a Constitution perpetuated this many generations on is a form of tyranny by our ancestors.
- linuxftw 7y agoEven if it's found to be ambiguous, that would only limit the federal governments power, not increase it. > I'm more of a Jeffersonian in this: a Constitution perpetuated this many generations on is a form of tyranny by our ancestors. Then you must believe secession is constitutional and legitimate.
- madhadron 7y agoI don't follow the logic behind either of your statements. Could you please elaborate?
- linuxftw 7y agoSure. Part 1: The US Constitution grants enumerated powers to the US Federal Government. If there is any ambiguity in the Constitution as to whether or not the US Federal government can do something, then the answer is 'they can't.' Part 2: If you believe the constitution is tyrannical in itself, that future generations owe no allegiance to it, then you logically support secession. Why should anyone be bound by any agreement made in the past, perpetually, without external remediation? Secession is the answer; in order for the Constitution to be valid, it has to be voluntary, and it's not voluntary unless secession is legitimate.
- madhadron 7y agoPart 1: No, that doesn't follow at all. Part 2: The reference is to a specific quote from Jefferson. Again, what you're saying just doesn't follow.