9 ms·

Great stuff... Now knowing what you do, could you speculate how would the current powers of the intelligence committee be viewed by the participants in that pro

Great stuff... Now knowing what you do, could you speculate how would the current powers of the intelligence committee be viewed by the participants in that process?

dragonwriter 3y ago
I think the general opinion would be, to borrow from King Louis’ Head (by way of Alexander Hamilton, as imagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda): “Do what you want, I’m super dead”. Though, among those regarded as Founding Fathers, that might be most particularly the view of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: “On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. 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 them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.” (Letter to James Madison, Paris, Sep. 6, 1789)
- pyuser583 3y ago
  Are suggesting we abolish the Constitution and create a new one?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Are suggesting we abolish the Constitution and create a new one? No, that was Thomas Jefferson saying that. I’m saying asking “what would the founders think?” is asking an irrelevant question, as well as an unanswerable one.
    - ixwt 3y ago
      The current Supreme Court and their fixation on originalism would strongly disagree with you.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        Originalism is a mode of interpretation that focuses on how words of a legal enactment would have been understood when written, which is a distinctly different question than what the authors’ opinion would have been of something.
tcmart14 3y ago
Dragonwriter has a great response. My short and sweet answer is, the constitution is a living document for a reason and people ~250 years ago couldn't possibly plan for a world where cell phones exists (or think about the intricacies of that world). That doesn't mean all their work goes out the window, but it means their work does not hold the answer to everything. Trying to define the constitutionality of regulating telecom with words written that couldn't conceive of that world, probably has a few flaws.

Great stuff... Now knowing what you do, could you speculate how would the current powers of the intelligence committee be viewed by the participants in that process?

dragonwriter 3y ago

I think the general opinion would be, to borrow from King Louis’ Head (by way of Alexander Hamilton, as imagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda): “Do what you want, I’m super dead”. Though, among those regarded as Founding Fathers, that might be most particularly the view of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: “On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. 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 them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.” (Letter to James Madison, Paris, Sep. 6, 1789)

pyuser583 3y ago
Are suggesting we abolish the Constitution and create a new one?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Are suggesting we abolish the Constitution and create a new one? No, that was Thomas Jefferson saying that. I’m saying asking “what would the founders think?” is asking an irrelevant question, as well as an unanswerable one.
  - ixwt 3y ago
    The current Supreme Court and their fixation on originalism would strongly disagree with you.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Originalism is a mode of interpretation that focuses on how words of a legal enactment would have been understood when written, which is a distinctly different question than what the authors’ opinion would have been of something.

tcmart14 3y ago

Dragonwriter has a great response. My short and sweet answer is, the constitution is a living document for a reason and people ~250 years ago couldn't possibly plan for a world where cell phones exists (or think about the intricacies of that world). That doesn't mean all their work goes out the window, but it means their work does not hold the answer to everything. Trying to define the constitutionality of regulating telecom with words written that couldn't conceive of that world, probably has a few flaws.