Two things. One, the original Constitution/BOR has already been bent and twisted by 17 amendments, albeit constitutionally. The 14th, 16th, and 17th being the most egregious.
The 14th amendment, for example, has turned our nation into a judicial oligarchy -- five justices interpret and define the laws for all 50 states. This was not the original intent, now was it?
The 16th taxes the income of only some citizens, and does so mecilessly and unequally. This was not the original intent, now was it?
The 17th has removed the voice of state government from Congress. This was not the original intent, now was it?
Two, what do you propose we do? Stand by and do nothing while our society goes down the toilet? The death of our great experiment, a federal republic, is preferable to violating your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?
Well, I don't agree. I think that what we have is worth saving. I don't agree that we are "violating" the constitution. Moreover, if you can show me that "original intent" means "sole intent" then I'll agree with you that is how it should be applied. If not, then "original intent" is merely interesting in an historical sense, and plays no role in current judicial interpretation.
And this precedent justifies bending and twisting further, including through extra-constitutional means (i.e., administrative law)? Judging from the tenor of your next few paragraphs, I'd venture to guess you think it doesn't.
Two, what do you propose we do? Stand by and do nothing while our society goes down the toilet? The death of our great experiment, a federal republic, is preferable to violating your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?
All I'm saying is that when you twist and turn, you give the twists and turns your opponent makes legitimacy. I remember back when Clinton was president, and here on FR (I was a long-time lurker), we conservatives used to use constitutional and ideological arguments as anti-Clinton weapons, and we felt pretty justified in doing so. Now that our side's in power, we seem to give constitutional and ideological arguments short shrift because our guys have their hands on the controls. They had their Clintonites; we have our Bushbots.
Well, I don't agree. I think that what we have is worth saving. I don't agree that we are "violating" the constitution. Moreover, if you can show me that "original intent" means "sole intent" then I'll agree with you that is how it should be applied. If not, then "original intent" is merely interesting in an historical sense, and plays no role in current judicial interpretation.
Do words mean anything at all if not what an author intends them to mean?