4 ms·

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices a

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads." In an alternate reality, it’s easy to see how this could be interpreted broadly as meaning the government has an impetus to provide for communications infrastructure.

syshum 6y ago
This clause like many others have been abused to the point there the literal words do not mean anything, this is the so call "living document" interpretation of the constitution, one that should be rejected as it sets in place a "standard" that the words mean what ever we choose them to mean There was an Amendment process put in place expressly to prevent the type of "reinterpretation" you are advocating for, if we the people desire the US Federal Government to provide us with Internet then we the people need to pass an constitutional amendment declaring that power
- patentatt 6y ago
  "... The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. ..." - Thomas Jefferson https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/tho... Jefferson was in favor of living people controlling government, rather than trying to divine what dead people would have wanted. The living document approach to understanding the constitution is a way to keep the text of the constitution static while still allowing for each generation to interpret it as they see fit. It's a pretty good compromise. Also: words always mean whatever we choose them to mean. As my favorite law professor would always remind us, words don't leap off the page and become reality by magic. People read the words, and people take actions. So what you're disparaging as "reinterpreting" I'd argue is just "interpreting," and is a necessary component of all written language.
  - syshum 6y ago
    That is a gross misrepresentation of Jefferson's view The modern "living document" is nothing like what Jefferson called for, which was all laws, even the constitution be sunsetted after 19 years allowing for the current generation to pass new laws and a new constitution This is a far cry from "these words mean something else now because we 9 people say they do" which is what the living document of today comes down to. Jefferson wanted robust debate and the consent of the governed to deiced the rules of their society not 9 people redefining words to fit their personal world view, in fact Jefferson wrote extensively about the problem the power the Supreme court held would have on society

syshum 6y ago

This clause like many others have been abused to the point there the literal words do not mean anything, this is the so call "living document" interpretation of the constitution, one that should be rejected as it sets in place a "standard" that the words mean what ever we choose them to mean There was an Amendment process put in place expressly to prevent the type of "reinterpretation" you are advocating for, if we the people desire the US Federal Government to provide us with Internet then we the people need to pass an constitutional amendment declaring that power

patentatt 6y ago
"... The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. ..." - Thomas Jefferson https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/tho... Jefferson was in favor of living people controlling government, rather than trying to divine what dead people would have wanted. The living document approach to understanding the constitution is a way to keep the text of the constitution static while still allowing for each generation to interpret it as they see fit. It's a pretty good compromise. Also: words always mean whatever we choose them to mean. As my favorite law professor would always remind us, words don't leap off the page and become reality by magic. People read the words, and people take actions. So what you're disparaging as "reinterpreting" I'd argue is just "interpreting," and is a necessary component of all written language.
- syshum 6y ago
  That is a gross misrepresentation of Jefferson's view The modern "living document" is nothing like what Jefferson called for, which was all laws, even the constitution be sunsetted after 19 years allowing for the current generation to pass new laws and a new constitution This is a far cry from "these words mean something else now because we 9 people say they do" which is what the living document of today comes down to. Jefferson wanted robust debate and the consent of the governed to deiced the rules of their society not 9 people redefining words to fit their personal world view, in fact Jefferson wrote extensively about the problem the power the Supreme court held would have on society