News Are women people? The inconsistency of absolute originalism

[zomgwtf]

living tree, eh? sounds a little too much like the Living Word for my tastes. i suppose that for some, nationalism is the new god, but it ain't for me.

Huh? Did you even read the case overview provided?

 

[Proton Soup]

You don't like the word 'living'? Or you just don't like it used as an adjective, but using it as a verb or noun is okay? Or you don't like it used as an adjective for single syllable words, but using it as an adjective for multi-syllable words would be okay (such as "Living Constitution")?

Just curious, because that's a very interesting quirk for a person to have.

i reject the entire doctrine as stated on the wiki. a term like "living constitution" is an oxymoron. if a Constitution is "living", and therefore subject to the interpretive whims of whoever happens to be in power at the moment, then it lacks "constitution". to me, this is a dangerous state of affairs.

the alternative is to have a "non-living" document that retains the intent of those who wrote it. and then, if society evolves to a point that a supermajority thinks it should be changed, then you write amendments. some minority in power might find this all a bit inconvenient, but then, that is much of the point of it. holier than thou types rarely are.

 

[Al68]

the alternative is to have a "non-living" document that retains the intent of those who wrote it.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I have to disagree (slightly) with this. A better alternative is to just stick to the actual text that was approved and ratified, regardless of supposed intent.

As a strict constructionist rather than an "originalist", it seems to me that "the intent of those who wrote it" is not a single intent, and not necessarily the intent of those who approved the text. Those who wrote the constitution (and each amendment), and those who approved it, were not a single monolithic entity with a single "original intent".

The only "intent" they had in common was the intent to approve the actual text of the constitution and amendments.

Edit: Of course while you and I bicker about whether it means what it says or what the authors intended it to mean, power hungry politicians and their corrupt court nominees instead routinely decide that it means whatever allows the implementation of the agenda they advocate.

 

[Proton Soup]

Edit: Of course while you and I bicker about whether it means what it says or what the authors intended it to mean, power hungry politicians and their corrupt court nominees instead routinely decide that it means whatever allows the implementation of the agenda they advocate.

i agree!

 

[mheslep]

i reject the entire doctrine as stated on the wiki. a term like "living constitution" is an oxymoron. if a Constitution is "living", and therefore subject to the interpretive whims of whoever happens to be in power at the moment, then it lacks "constitution". to me, this is a dangerous state of affairs.

the alternative is to have a "non-living" document that retains the intent of those who wrote it. and then, if society evolves to a point that a supermajority thinks it should be changed, then you write amendments. some minority in power might find this all a bit inconvenient, but then, that is much of the point of it. [...]

Simply and well said, just like the document itself. All seems obviously so to me.