3 ms·

> an indicator that the founders intended This is exactly the mistake I'm trying to point out. "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. "Why do

> an indicator that the founders intended This is exactly the mistake I'm trying to point out. "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. "Why do we eat bananas?" "Because the founders intended it." "Why aren't you eating a banana?" "Because the founders didn't intend for me to eat bananas." > they wanted less laws than more This works for you because you want less laws than more. I think that the amendment process is difficult because there are a fuckton of Americans and because the founders didn't trust the states. (Which is also why they had a House of Representatives.) They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them.

bmelton 13y ago
> "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. Well, it is though. That isn't to suggest that it's the definitive argument or standard to be held to, but it's definitely valid. Justices sitting on the Supreme Court agree, though not all of them. There are definitely competing beliefs, but just saying that isn't valid doesn't invalidate it. Regardless of whether we agree that it should be the prevailing theory, there are ramifications for its applicability. The House just passed (rather, extended, but same difference) that would, if enacted, ban the manufacture of undetectable firearms. So, we're in a legal morass right now that it is legal for me to manufacture guns at home, and it is legal for me to purchase undetectable firearms, but it is not legal for me to manufacture undetectable firearms at home. What does that mean? Well, presumably, the intent is to prevent me from being able to smuggle home-grown guns onto airplanes. By that metric, if I manufacture a gun that is made of plastic, but that has some metallic (detectable) components, am I in the clear? By the law, yes I am. If, however, those metallic components are detachable, such that I could still effectively smuggle the weapon through TSA screening, does that change the matter? > This works for you because you want less laws than more. Who said that I want less laws? I acknowledged in my original diatribe that more individual freedom may not prove to be the most effective outcome, and ultimately, the most effective outcome to win. I don't know what that is. Perhaps it is an application of less laws, perhaps it is an application of more consistent laws, or perhaps it is a more consistent application of law? My biggest gripe, for what it's worth, relates to the latter of those. I believe that the largest problem in our nation relates neither to the relative wealth or dearth of laws, but of their corrupt application. I would wager that many on either the right or left would share this interpretation, whether they know it or not, though I don't know how many would agree on its prioritization. > They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them This is the statement with which I most disagree. I think that they very gravely foresaw this, and even went so far as to challenge later generations of Americans with the task of preventing it. Hamilton even advocated for this, on matters of efficiency, but ultimately lost out on the argument, though I'd argue that conflict accounts for much of the vagueries of the Constitution that we have now.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > Justices sitting on the Supreme Court agree, though not all of them. Are you the person I previously had a discussion about originalism with on here? I linked Posner for someone a month or two ago; might have been you. /does search Yeah. We didn't come to any agreement. :P
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Was it me? Link me. I don't remember it. Just so it's said, neither of us has to be right for our opinions to be equally valid. And regardless of whether or not we agree, originalism certainly has validity in arguments of law, we're just disagreeing with whether or not it should be the standard we hold highest. I'm not saying that necessarily we should.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      The thread is back here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6662163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6662163
      - bmelton 13y ago
        Thanks. I remember it now. I don't know what to think of the idea that "political corruption" apparently comprises a non-negligible portion of my HN postings, and your pointing it out makes me aware that it is. Probably time for a self-imposed moratorium.

bmelton 13y ago

> "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. Well, it is though. That isn't to suggest that it's the definitive argument or standard to be held to, but it's definitely valid. Justices sitting on the Supreme Court agree, though not all of them. There are definitely competing beliefs, but just saying that isn't valid doesn't invalidate it. Regardless of whether we agree that it should be the prevailing theory, there are ramifications for its applicability. The House just passed (rather, extended, but same difference) that would, if enacted, ban the manufacture of undetectable firearms. So, we're in a legal morass right now that it is legal for me to manufacture guns at home, and it is legal for me to purchase undetectable firearms, but it is not legal for me to manufacture undetectable firearms at home. What does that mean? Well, presumably, the intent is to prevent me from being able to smuggle home-grown guns onto airplanes. By that metric, if I manufacture a gun that is made of plastic, but that has some metallic (detectable) components, am I in the clear? By the law, yes I am. If, however, those metallic components are detachable, such that I could still effectively smuggle the weapon through TSA screening, does that change the matter? > This works for you because you want less laws than more. Who said that I want less laws? I acknowledged in my original diatribe that more individual freedom may not prove to be the most effective outcome, and ultimately, the most effective outcome to win. I don't know what that is. Perhaps it is an application of less laws, perhaps it is an application of more consistent laws, or perhaps it is a more consistent application of law? My biggest gripe, for what it's worth, relates to the latter of those. I believe that the largest problem in our nation relates neither to the relative wealth or dearth of laws, but of their corrupt application. I would wager that many on either the right or left would share this interpretation, whether they know it or not, though I don't know how many would agree on its prioritization. > They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them This is the statement with which I most disagree. I think that they very gravely foresaw this, and even went so far as to challenge later generations of Americans with the task of preventing it. Hamilton even advocated for this, on matters of efficiency, but ultimately lost out on the argument, though I'd argue that conflict accounts for much of the vagueries of the Constitution that we have now.

saraid216 13y ago
> Justices sitting on the Supreme Court agree, though not all of them. Are you the person I previously had a discussion about originalism with on here? I linked Posner for someone a month or two ago; might have been you. /does search Yeah. We didn't come to any agreement. :P
- bmelton 13y ago
  Was it me? Link me. I don't remember it. Just so it's said, neither of us has to be right for our opinions to be equally valid. And regardless of whether or not we agree, originalism certainly has validity in arguments of law, we're just disagreeing with whether or not it should be the standard we hold highest. I'm not saying that necessarily we should.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    The thread is back here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6662163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6662163
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Thanks. I remember it now. I don't know what to think of the idea that "political corruption" apparently comprises a non-negligible portion of my HN postings, and your pointing it out makes me aware that it is. Probably time for a self-imposed moratorium.