2 ms·
A fine sentiment but for practical purposes advancement by the path of constitutional amendment is nearly impossible at this point. Should we forever forgo mean
by michaelmrose 6y ago
A fine sentiment but for practical purposes advancement by the path of constitutional amendment is nearly impossible at this point. Should we forever forgo meaningful change even when well supported by the plain text of the law in order to cleave to what we believe someone meant 200 years ago?
- tsimionescu 6y agoIf you don't accept that, then what can stop a court from interpreting a law that says "the penalty for jaywalking is 100$" to mean "the penalty for walking around somewhere the locals don't want you is 100$"? If the courts are free to interpret the letter of the law without thinking about the intention of the framers, and the meaning that was given before, what is the difference between courts and lawmakers? Note: I'm talking entirely philosophically here. In practice, I'm extremely happy that the Supreme Court doesn't allow slavery and that they consider gay marriage to be a human right, that elective abortion is also a human right etc. But, as happy as I am that these are accepted as fundamental human rights, as I think they should be, I don't understand what the point of the constitution really is in this place.