The constitution means what it means, and that doesn't change according to the whims of the Supreme Court.
So Marbury v. Madison and 200 years of jurisprudence are meaningless and you get to say what the constitution means. No. That's why, in part, we have a Supreme Court to-to tell us what the Constitution means.
The easy example is flogging and butchering ears. When the 8th Amendment of the Constitution was passed those were common punishments. So we need the supreme court to say what "cruel and unusual punishment means." Similarly we need the court to tell us what "estalishment of religion" and "equal protection" mean. Original intent or strict construction sound all well and good in theory. But in practice it's impossible. The constitution was not frozen in 1789, nor the Bill of Rights frozen in 1791.
Lastly to say that an argument that is flat out contradictory is not intellectually an insult. I was just calling you on your rhetorical device. There is a difference between insulting you and insulting your argument.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-12 11:50 am (UTC)So Marbury v. Madison and 200 years of jurisprudence are meaningless and you get to say what the constitution means. No. That's why, in part, we have a Supreme Court to-to tell us what the Constitution means.
The easy example is flogging and butchering ears. When the 8th Amendment of the Constitution was passed those were common punishments. So we need the supreme court to say what "cruel and unusual punishment means." Similarly we need the court to tell us what "estalishment of religion" and "equal protection" mean. Original intent or strict construction sound all well and good in theory. But in practice it's impossible. The constitution was not frozen in 1789, nor the Bill of Rights frozen in 1791.
Lastly to say that an argument that is flat out contradictory is not intellectually an insult. I was just calling you on your rhetorical device. There is a difference between insulting you and insulting your argument.