Jonah Goldberg is rambling against the movement to view the U.S. Constitution as a 'living' document, meaning one with shifting interpretations in order to keep up with the needs of changing times. It's a lot like the Bible that way; we need to interpret the Constitution and the Bible for modern generations.
Hey, it would be nice if it weren't necessary; if there some way to amend the Constitution so that we could change it. But alas, the Founding Fathers unwisely chose to make the Constitution carved in stone, unchangeable forever. So it is necessary to grant judges the authority to reinterpret it for our benefit so that we can continue letting this document guide us.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It has. I was trying to wryly point out the illogic of arguments in favor of a 'living' Constitution.
What's more, I think we should grant the church the final authority to reinterpret scripture for our benefit so that we can continue letting the Bible guide us.
Heh!
John, How come it's always the people who want to justify their own actions who want a living constitution or Bible?
Hmm. To that statement, I must confess, "guilty as charged". At least with the Bible.
I'm with Greg. I don't get your point. The Constitution has/does change, expand, wiggle and experience growth (and reduction ocassionally). We need it to be thus.
Are you arguing for or against that sort of notion? I can't tell...
Change and growth is quite acceptable -- if it comes from the process built into the Constitution: amendments. If it comes throught courts "interpreting" the Constitution for new times, then the changes are illegitimate and undemocratic.
Post a Comment