Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
They had to leave the interpretation of the word "unreasonable" to some level of subjectivity because it would simply be too lengthy to articulate all such distinctions.

Well, you're suggesting that they used vague language because they believed it was impossible to be more specific. I am suggesting that they used vague language for an additional purpose - because they wanted to expand the power of future decision makers to determine what is reasonable or unreasonable under the different circumstances in which the future decision makers would be living. I am suggesting that they knew that circumstances would change and that future decision makers would make better decisions than the drafters could make about what would be reasonable or unreasonable under those changed circumstances.

Does that disturb you?

313 posted on 08/15/2015 4:49:16 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies ]


To: Tau Food
I am suggesting that they knew that circumstances would change and that future decision makers would make better decisions than the drafters could make about what would be reasonable or unreasonable under those changed circumstances.

They had already incorporated a solution into their work. It's called "the amendment process."

Does that disturb you?

It disturbs me somewhat that you think like this. No, it doesn't disturb me that the founders thought like this because I have no belief that they did.

319 posted on 08/16/2015 8:17:48 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson