The State Of The Nation
From Forward Progressives
First let me say, I believe our Constitution is one of the most
remarkable documents ever written. While flawed, it set the foundation
to build a nation the likes of which the world had never before seen.
Many of the men responsible for writing it were ideological geniuses.
But the truth of the matter is it was written over 200 years ago. We didn't have the internet, cell phones, satellites, semi-automatic weapons-hell, we didn't even have electricity.
So it's always somewhat baffled me to see people cling so tightly to something that was written so long ago. To see highly educated individuals try and determine the correct "interpretation of the law based on the Constitution" for situations that didn't even exist when it was written, just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
Tell me, how the heck can we determine "Constitutional interpretation of law" based on laws which govern situations or events that couldn't have even been imagined when it was written?
And don't give me the "Constitutional Amendment process." It's completely broken. When our process for passing a Constitutional Amendment was written we had a handful of states and a Congress that was a fraction of the size. It wasn't unheard of to get two-thirds of both the House and Senate as well as three-fourths of the states to ratify something. Granted it wasn't easy, but it was much more realistic with numbers that were much smaller.
by Allen Clifton
Many of the men responsible for writing it were ideological geniuses.
But the truth of the matter is it was written over 200 years ago. We didn't have the internet, cell phones, satellites, semi-automatic weapons-hell, we didn't even have electricity.
So it's always somewhat baffled me to see people cling so tightly to something that was written so long ago. To see highly educated individuals try and determine the correct "interpretation of the law based on the Constitution" for situations that didn't even exist when it was written, just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
Tell me, how the heck can we determine "Constitutional interpretation of law" based on laws which govern situations or events that couldn't have even been imagined when it was written?
And don't give me the "Constitutional Amendment process." It's completely broken. When our process for passing a Constitutional Amendment was written we had a handful of states and a Congress that was a fraction of the size. It wasn't unheard of to get two-thirds of both the House and Senate as well as three-fourths of the states to ratify something. Granted it wasn't easy, but it was much more realistic with numbers that were much smaller.
No comments:
Post a Comment