3 ms·
It takes a super-majority to change the constitution, which I applaud. Else some cosa-nostra could easily take over everything that protects the rights of minor
by galaxyLogic 12y ago
It takes a super-majority to change the constitution, which I applaud. Else some cosa-nostra could easily take over everything that protects the rights of minorities. Constitution is a way for all "minorities" to agree to such a basis for a society which doesn't burn itself up in continual civic unrest. And let's face it, we are all minorities one way or another. Red hair?
My point is not about whether we should have laws that need a super-majority to change them. It is about the type of arguments on why to change them or not. We shouldn't not change them because someone 200 years ago wouldn't have liked it. Even worse argumentation: We shouldn't change it because this is what I, me, the Judge of supreme court think they would have wanted me to do.
C'mon Supreme Judges, stop hiding behind the veil of history. Acknoweldge the responsibility you have for your OWN decisions.
- Zigurd 12y agoWe already see the pernicious effect of eviscerating all the meaning from words like "limited" in copyright and patent law. If you take the literal, almost mathematical, meaning of "limited" it places no practical limits on anything. Limited now means the opposite. That's obviously a ridiculous and evil outcome. Similarly the words "necessary and proper" have lost any power because lawyers have argued them into submission. The role of judges should be not to improvise on the basis of this evacuation of meaning, but to assign a reasonable meaning, based at least in part on supporting documents that show what the authors of those words had in mind.
- seanflyon 12y ago> It takes a super-majority to change the constitution, which I applaud. Except for when Judges decide they want it to mean something else now. That is why original intent matters.