Arms Locker banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In a recent speech Justice Scalia affirmed that he is an originalist, saying that the Constitution is a legal document; he believes that Constitutional references should always begin with the original document as written.

There are others who want the Constitution to be a 'living document' and to change and be flexible with the times.

What do y'all think?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
733 Posts
I think that it is pretty much fine the way it is. After the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, most of the other amendments (besides the two for booze which was just stupid) simply clarify rights (all colors can vote, all sexes can vote, age of voting, no slavery and those born in the US are citizens) or sets rules for the government (when presidency ends, how many senators, how to elect the president, etc).
It should only need interpretation when an issue is unclear, as in "are women really people, and should they vote, because it doesn't REALLY say that?"
Trying to create laws through the Supreme Court by "judicial review" is a bullshit move that has been in place way too long and in my opinion completely screws up the checks and balances that is supposed to be in place by law. Creating fuzzy areas of who "the people" mean in different places in the constitution is just a lawyerly way of screwing over the law abiding.

Of course, in the Bible, we started out with 10 laws direct from God. After the lawyers got hold of it, it took two more books to interpret it the way they wanted.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top