3 ms·
> By contrast some of the most fundamental laws in the nation, the Constitution's Bill of Rights, are generally just a sentence or two - and that works just fin
by GrantMoyer 2y ago
> By contrast some of the most fundamental laws in the nation, the Constitution's Bill of Rights, are generally just a sentence or two - and that works just fine.
To be fair, the Bill of Rights only works because it's been endlessly litigated, developing a large body of specific interpretaions. Together, all these interpretations would take far, far more than a couple of sentences to write out.
However, any issue of contention will be endlessly litigated regardless of how specific the written law is.
- sidewndr46 2y agoAnd to that extent, the Bill of Rights only works because the government finds it generally does not apply. For example, practically none of it applies to students at this point.
- cynicalpeace 2y agoThe Bill of Rights works because of the genius of the people who wrote it at the time. It starts to not work because of the lust for power of the people in charge of our bloated government now. This is a minority opinion on HN, but it's the correct one.
- snapcaster 2y agoWhat are you using as a definition of "working"? Not asking as a bullshit fake question, your comment made me think about how one would even define that
- cynicalpeace 2y agoI was just copying the phrase of the parent commenters. I like to speak freely. I like knowing I can defend my home. I like remaining silent when questioned by authorities. So if I can do those things- it's working. If I can't do those things, it's not working.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Breza 2y agoHow does it not apply to students? It's rare to read about a college student being imprisoned and tortured for being a member of a church while a soldier moves into her apartment.
- runako 2y ago> the Bill of Rights only works because it's been endlessly litigated, developing a large body of specific interpretaions. As a follow-on to that, it is still being litigated and the interpretations continue to shift over time. For example, it wasn't until relatively recently that the Court began reading the Second Amendment in such a way as to limit the ability of jurisdictions to enact laws that prevent people from carrying firearms most places. Similarly, there is a current push to change the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment as well. Your central point is key: The Law is more about the judiciary's current understanding of what's written than what is actually written.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoI’m just curious. Did the writers of the Bill of Rights expect this sort of constant reinterpretation of the laws to suit modern cases that we see today? Or did they actually believe that the ink was dry so to speak?