We Come In Peace Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 TheNewBills: The were created as a deliberative body comprised largely of lawyers. The truth of the intent of the document must be found in the body of works which led to and accompanied it, along with the understanding that it was written at a 4th grade reading level. Agree with New. The brilliance of the founding fathers was they were all smart enough to know they didn't know everything. They created a mechanism for change, slow change certainly, but change all the same. Thinking that the constitution was a finished and unchanging document once it was ratified in 1787 is just not reality nor the intent of the founding fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Agree with New. The brilliance of the founding fathers was they were all smart enough to know they didn't know everything. They created a mechanism for change, slow change certainly, but change all the same. Thinking that the constitution was a finished and unchanging document once it was ratified in 1787 is just not reality nor the intent of the founding fathers. Well I wouldn't call it "changing" or "living" it's just clear that there are some vague concepts that are ideas...or values...embodied in the constitution. These values do not change or evolve necessarily. But you must apply them to new situations as they come up. The question then is what approach do you take to do this. If you think that at the time of the framing there was wide consensus among all who signed/contributed to it as to what exactly the establishment clause, the freedom of speech, "liberty," ...what all that meant and that you can know this through an extensive historical view...then you can be my guest. I just think that all things considered the people who sit on the Supreme Court are appointed and hold that position for a reason...they have an understanding of what those values are and how the document works and they apply that understanding to the cases before them. They are not IMO appointed b/c they know what the "correct history" was as too the exact meaning of various things as of the 18th century to a group of people who disagreed on many issues and compromised a working document. edit: And that isn't to say that sometimes history is not one of the tools that should be used along with others Edited November 8, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts