Again, with respect to travel, I point to current jurisprudence, which whether we like it or not, is what controls what is and is not Constitutional. This stunt does nothing toward changing any of that.
That said, I was not touting the Constitution was a dead document line, I was responding to someone’s comments about missing x, y, z historical figures, with specific references to actual events during their lives. It’s faulty logic to ASSUME we know how anyone would react in any situation, and to say historical figure x, y, z would react this way or that in a given situation with today’s parameters is such a nonsensical debate to have as it can neither be proven nor disproven because the fact of the matter is we, as humans, think of the world as we see it today, not as our great grandchildren will see it in the future.
“I point to current jurisprudence, which whether we like it or not, is what controls what is and is not Constitutional.”
Much of current jurisprudence is wrong and we all know that from FR. One blatent example is the twisting of the constitution to give us “right to medical privacy between a doctor and patient” which was then further twisted to set up government sanctioned murder.
We have Kelo over riding private property. We have the interstate commerce clause being used for anything and everything. Now we have the confiscation of our physical beings being decided in court and their decision will be a matter of jurisprudence.
That does not make it constitutional. Period.
“It’s faulty logic to ASSUME we know how anyone would react in any situation, and to say historical figure x, y, z would react this way or that in a given situation with today’s parameters is such a nonsensical debate to have..”
Which is why they gave us such a beautiful governing document. They knew we would have to constantly battle despots, and they were hopeful that those giving their consent to be governed would maintain individual liberty with a vengence. Sadly, in that our public has failed them for 80-90 years....