Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (921572)	2/15/2016 11:18:45 PM
From: Bill	4 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 longnshort PKRBKR Tenchusatsu Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578452

The founders anticipated that and created the amendment process. If you want to "evolve" the constitution, amend it.

To: puborectalis who wrote (921572)	2/16/2016 12:08:19 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578452

Yeah, I know. While the Founders were pretty bright guys, they weren't gods. And they knew it. Nor were they all of one mind. Only morons would have believed nothing would change over the intervening centuries. Whatever else you want to say about them, they weren't morons. They did their best. Some things worked out, like having three branches to the government. Some things didn't, the whole militia thing, for example. George Washington was skeptical about them filling in for a trained army and he was proven right during the various rebellions and the War of 1812. Which is why Congress killed them off in the early 1800s. But founders myths are the heart of nationalism. And that is the heart of fascism. So we have this skewing of history. The Koch brothers, through their various think tanks, pushed this idea of originalism because it is a great way to destroy our democracy.

To: puborectalis who wrote (921572)	2/16/2016 7:13:37 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1578452

“A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.” – Justice Scalia "If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility." — Antonin Scalia "The worst thing about the Living Constitution is that it will destroy the Constitution." Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way Although it is a minority view now, the reality is that, not very long ago, originalism was orthodoxy. Everybody, at least purported to be an originalist. If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn’t think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted. Or consider the opinions of John Marshall in the Federal Bank case, where he says, we must not, we must always remember it is a constitution we are expounding. And since it’s a constitution, he says, you have to give its provisions expansive meaning so that they will accommodate events that you do not know of which will happen in the future. Well, if it is a constitution that changes, you wouldn’t have to give it an expansive meaning. You can give it whatever meaning you want and, when future necessity arises, you simply change the meaning. But anyway, that is no longer the orthodoxy.