Nevertheless, we would still have to guess as to what the framers of the Constitution would have wrote if they knew what the future held.
There you have it, in a nutshell. That's the best, most succinct, explanation of Constitutional interpretation I've read. I am going to save it for future reference.>>
We have to guess, not just about what they would have thought about the future, but what they thought about their own present. >>>
<<< what the framers of the Constitution would have wrote if they knew what the future held.>>>
What they knew about the future was that they did not want to have an endless series of laws written that finally permits the government to become what Britain had become.
Laws that reach out and gradually extract all freedoms of its citizens.
Like the religious aspects of Inquisition. the glass tax, the tea tax, the impression of naval troops, the suppression of the Press and free speech.
For freedom of the Press and free speech we still have Mr. Sites and Abu Graihb ? photos, Dan Rathers fakes, the bloggers that exposed him. The Web.
Can be temporarily damaging, but the truth will come out sooner or later.
Separation of Church and State. Minor arguments only, despite the heat (hahaha)
Written before the time of Jules Verne , they had no way to evaluate the later inventions such as the car or the airplane.
Which could become lethal weapons in the wrong hands,
but again we are free to fly and free to drive with only a licence in non-restricted areas.
The Constitution still stands, and there is none better.
Let the lawyers hired by Al Gore beat their heads on the authority of the Supreme Court.
Sig
|
