It seems to me that the words that are written today could be made to mean something different 100 to 200 years later.
Is it judicially honest to take what had one meaning 100 years ago then say but this could mean this other thing now. Or should the courts be required to hold to the spirit of the words as they were written at the time?
@eladar saidDoesn’t it all boil down to rights of people living together in an established society, there having been no change in 10000 years as to ‘live and let live’ , Do unto others, ‘ the 10 commandments, etc.? Nothing has changed so I think that words written 200 years ago always apply forever. Truly, what can change?
It seems to me that the words that are written today could be made to mean something different 100 to 200 years later.
Is it judicially honest to take what had one meaning 100 years ago then say but this could mean this other thing now. Or should the courts be required to hold to the spirit of the words as they were written at the time?
@AverageJoe1
What can change? By the meaning the courts give to the words.
14th amendment was supposed to help set things right for freed slaves. Now it is used for other things which the people who wrote the amendment had no clue it would be used.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@eladar said"A well regulated militia..."
It seems to me that the words that are written today could be made to mean something different 100 to 200 years later.
Is it judicially honest to take what had one meaning 100 years ago then say but this could mean this other thing now. Or should the courts be required to hold to the spirit of the words as they were written at the time?
"GIMME MAH GURN!!!"
Only when it serves you, doesn't it, Eladar?
@eladar saidLet's start with this:
It seems to me that the words that are written today could be made to mean something different 100 to 200 years later.
Is it judicially honest to take what had one meaning 100 years ago then say but this could mean this other thing now. Or should the courts be required to hold to the spirit of the words as they were written at the time?
If the Constitution prohibits punishment that is "unusual," doesn't the definition of "unusual" inherently change based on what is "unusual" at the time it's being applied?
@shallow-blue saidSo you are saying the Constitution was designed so that the population would have guns taken away.
"A well regulated militia..."
"GIMME MAH GURN!!!"
Only when it serves you, doesn't it, Eladar?
@eladar saidThe wording of the 14th Amendment is all inclusive, the idea that it only meant to apply to ex-slaves is anti-textual and ahistorical.
@AverageJoe1
What can change? By the meaning the courts give to the words.
14th amendment was supposed to help set things right for freed slaves. Now it is used for other things which the people who wrote the amendment had no clue it would be used.
@no1marauder saidWords could mean anything to you.
The wording of the 14th Amendment is all inclusive, the idea that it only meant to apply to ex-slaves is anti-textual and ahistorical.
@eladar said🙄
@no1marauder
It means the newly freed slaves will have the same rights as all others.
I miss the "rolling eyes" one.
@no1marauder
The problem comes when the government attempts to control areas outside the government. The Constitution was not designed to create a government that dictates hiring practices. Yet somehow the Federal government has started micromanaging society giving special groups special protections other groups do not receive.
To pull this off the courts have had to redefine what amendments were originally intended to mean.