Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
You're assuming that everyone knows the "true meaning" of some disputed part of the Constitution.

No, I'm assuming the self-evident position that there is a true meaning to each of the parts of the Constitution. I'm not assuming that "everyone knows" what the meaning is, only that it's knowable.

606 posted on 08/08/2004 1:09:56 PM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies ]


To: inquest
"that there is a true meaning to each of the parts of the Constitution."

No, there is not. The meaning is interpreted as times change, as technology changes.

Free speech includes nude dancing? Now who would have thought?

There is a right to privacy that allows a woman to murder her baby?

List for me all the rights covered by the 9th amendment. List for me all the state powers covered by the 10th. Define an "unreasonable search" or an "excessive bail", or a "speedy trial", or "keep and bear arms".

The founders didn't know the true meaning, yet you do? Or someone does? Who?

609 posted on 08/08/2004 1:30:07 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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