It has been awhile so here is a new point to ponder. There is considerable debate about the nature of the US Constitution. There are those who argue that the document is living and breathing and so would be subject to each generation's reexamination and interpretation. The thought that the document which serves as the law of the land would be subject to zeitgeist would render the constitutional authority meaningless. After all with no baseline of standards how would the system of government and laws contemplated by the framers retain authority?
On the other hand to claim the language of the document means what it says and the text adequately blies the framers' intent is equally misguided. As anyone who watches an old movie or television program can attest, words do not always retain their meaning. Nor do attitudes, certainly the framers of the Bill of Rights who denied women the vote and at the very least tolerated slavery at the rate of 3/5 a human per person. Changed their perspective in subsequent amendments.
The Constitution is not a D-vine law with an eternal quality nor is it a malleable mass without shape or contour.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment