Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin
I don't know about that, but I do think you might be out of step with the framers of the Constitution.
If there ever was an original intent behind the Constitution, it is impossible to know. It was ratified by 13 former colonies, one at a time, over a period of 2-1/2 years. More than 1,000 individual delegates voted on the ratification question. Do you think that every delegate or state that voted for ratification had exactly the same intent with respect to every part of the Constitution? I don't.
Many of the leaders behind the Constitution, including my fellow Virginian James Madison, one smart son of a gun, believed that the Constitution needed to evolve. His original intent was that we not be bound by what people these days call original intent.
So, I think any effort to try to stick with the original intent is futile and probably contrary to what Madison would have wanted.
|
If that is the case--evolving apart from amendment--then it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The supremes can use anything they choose as precedent--US law, foreign law, even what is politically expedient. Not good for a law-abiding country.
Amendment is the procedure proivided for evolving--I'm OK with that--but apart from that, the document is meaningless.