Replies

""Sunstein says, that the Framers were committed to originalism. Does it follow that we must be originalists? No, he says, for it "is up to us to decide whether to accept" originalism. Why, after all, "should we be governed by people long dead?""

I ask the same question, "why should we be governed by a political party that is long dead?"

You know, there is a lot of back-and-forth between the left and Right about the Constitution. One topic that never seems to get resolved is that "It was written 200+ years ago, things are different now, we need to be able to adapt."

My take on this is that our Constitution is, simply, a procedure that tells the governement how it is to operate. It really is a beautifully written document. So, in the past 200 years, I'd have to agree, things have changed. The real sticky part is that no one seems to realize that the Constitution has within it, the mechanism for change.

For example, if we as a nation decide that we can no longer afford to have an armed populace, then we need to amend the Constitution to give the Gov't power to remove the guns from society.

Just opting to begin ignoring or 'interpreting' parts to get your desired result is to declare ALL portions null and void. Why adhere to any when some are ignored?

I wish Judge Roberts had slapped Shumer with "My job as Justice is to read and apply the Constitution. If you don't like the way it is written, then you do YOUR job and change it."

"I ask the same question, "why should we be governed by a political party that is long dead?"

Your kidding right? So we should abandon the PRICIPLES put into place in the Constitution because the authors are dead? The Constitution was written to places boundries of the government, not laws agisnt the people. That is the orginal intent. UUUg. I cant beieve I resonded to this post, time to take a tylenol. I need to stop beating my head on the desk when I read something this goofy.