4 ms·
The "it wasn't invented at the time they wrote the Constitution, so the Constitution doesn't apply to it" argument has been debunked long ago. Otherwise, freedo
by joshuaheard 4y ago
The "it wasn't invented at the time they wrote the Constitution, so the Constitution doesn't apply to it" argument has been debunked long ago. Otherwise, freedom of speech would only apply to parchment and quill pens. The whole point of a court is to interpret the Constitution with new facts and situations that arise.
- kube-system 4y agoOriginalism was rejected by the court for the longest time, but we have since appointed new judges to the court who don't reject those arguments. They used originalist arguments to overturn the NYC gun ban yesterday.
- pmoriarty 4y ago"The whole point of a court is to interpret the Constitution with new facts and situations that arise." You're describing the "living constitution"[1] view, which has not been the dominant position among Supreme Court justices for some time. Now they're all "strict constructionists"[2], who think the opposite of what you describe: that the constitution should be interpreted just as it was written. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism