God Bless Donald Trump

I have learned more about US civics in the last two years than all the years that preceded them, (been a few.)

An observation regarding the US Constitution: Did the signatories really intend to produce a document that was open to interpretation by an odd number, (somewhere I remember that it wasn't always nine) of politically appointed judges? The justices are in position for life and are not super humans. They get old and frail like we all do if an early exit isn't in the cards. The latest political 'holy grail' seems to be the option to appoint as many like minded justices as possible. This is not new to this Administration. Are we too in awe of the authors of this document?

Rexedgar said:

I have learned more about US civics in the last two years than all the years that preceded them, (been a few.)

An observation regarding the US Constitution: Did the signatories really intend to produce a document that was open to interpretation by an odd number, (somewhere I remember that it wasn't always nine) of politically appointed judges? The justices are in position for life and are not super humans. They get old and frail like we all do if an early exit isn't in the cards. The latest political 'holy grail' seems to be the option to appoint as many like minded justices as possible. This is not new to this Administration. Are we too in awe of the authors of this document?

Click to expand...

Yes we are, as they were merely men like any ohers. I think the argument against it being a "living document" speaks to that. If we are expected to interpret everything today by standards of over 200 years ago, what should we cease technilogical progress? Changing technological, societal and many other factors make it imperative we have flexibiliy. The founders could not have anticipaed a great many problems we face today. We can't simply ignore reality in favor of a 200+ year old standard. It's well and good to look at original intent, but ultimately things do change and they way we conduct law and order has to change with it to some degree.

markjs said:

Yes we are, as they were merely men like any ohers. I think the argument against it being a "living document" speaks to that. If we are expected to interpret everything today by standards of over 200 years ago, what should we cease technilogical progress? Changing technological, societal and many other factors make it imperative we have flexibiliy. The founders could not have anticipaed a great many problems we face today. We can't simply ignore reality in favor of a 200+ year old standard. It's well and good to look at original intent, but ultimately things do change and they way we conduct law and order has to change with it to some degree.

Click to expand...

You know why this topic is brought up,,,,,when ever the 'technology' angle is mentioned, some folks refer to the 1st amendment and bring all the changes in communication to the table. I think we are in agreement as far as the document was not chiseled into stone. What's your stance on the pov that technology somehow is different in one interpretation and should be looked at in another?

Well a strict originalist would say, no speech should be infringed, but personally, in cases of things like websites that push kooky conspiracy theory as "news" or "fact", in any case, where doing so could cause harm, well, I woldn't have a problem with legally sanctioning such speech, as to who or how it wold be enforced, well that's beyond me and I'm likely as cynical as anyone as to who can be trusted. I don't think he founders considered problems like "anti vaxxers" and such, but real people die and are hurt by these kooky ideas and I don't see why such things should be protected, without at least some oversight where real harm can come by spreading false information.

Even something as silly as requiring such sites to carry a "surgeon general's warning", could be a somewhat effective strategy, not infringing a group's right to talk about a contraversial stance, but requiring a warning from the scientific community to the dangers and evidence to the contrary.

Rexedgar said:

I have learned more about US civics in the last two years than all the years that preceded them, (been a few.)

An observation regarding the US Constitution: Did the signatories really intend to produce a document that was open to interpretation by an odd number, (somewhere I remember that it wasn't always nine) of politically appointed judges? The justices are in position for life and are not super humans. They get old and frail like we all do if an early exit isn't in the cards. The latest political 'holy grail' seems to be the option to appoint as many like minded justices as possible. This is not new to this Administration. Are we too in awe of the authors of this document?

Click to expand...

The idea of the supreme court was a very very good one. The problem, unfortunately, is that the Republican side of the aisle seems to be consistently ending up on the wrong side of decisions because.....they're wrong. Unfortunately, their inability to admit to this reality has caused them to believe liberals are appointing activist judges to stack the deck against them, and have now pulled every bull**** trick in the book to try and do it themselves including pushing the unwritten rules of the Senate well beyond what they were ever intended for.

The supreme court while imperfect is absolutely necessary and designed in the best way that it really could have been. We need to have one branch of government that is not elected by a majority. We need to have a group of well educated and qualifed people who do not have to worry about winning popular election or being thrown out of office as a reprecussion of their decisions. This is necessary because they are the one branch of government that is designed specifically to protect the rights of minoirites. They need to be able to make decisions that the majority of Americans don't like because they need to be able to block the majority from trampling upon the rights of minorities.

The second thing that's important about judges is that they help serve as a bridge to the past. To remember why we did things a certain way, and to make sure that one election or even a couple elections can't radically undo centuries worth of good. They help insure that if you want to radically alter the direction of the country the people will need to consistantly vote for the same set of ideals over and over again across many different elections.

markjs said:

Well a strict originalist would say, no speech should be infringed, but personally, in cases of things like websites that push kooky conspiracy theory as "news" or "fact", in any case, where doing so could cause harm, well, I woldn't have a problem with legally sanctioning such speech, as to who or how it wold be enforced, well that's beyond me and I'm likely as cynical as anyone as to who can be trusted. I don't think he founders considered problems like "anti vaxxers" and such, but real people die and are hurt by these kooky ideas and I don't see why such things should be protected, without at least some oversight where real harm can come by spreading false information.

Even something as silly as requiring such sites to carry a "surgeon general's warning", could be a somewhat effective strategy, not infringing a group's right to talk about a contraversial stance, but requiring a warning from the scientific community to the dangers and evidence to the contrary.

Click to expand...

I don't think the strict originalist would be correct. There was quite a lot of retaliation against negative media outlets in those times, including by Presidents who were also among the founders.....