Originalism vs Evolving Constitutionalism: Constitution

[The Two Jerseys]

The Continental Congress tried to buy a musket that was capable of firing 30 rounds a minute in 1777. They obviously knew that the technology for rapid-fire weapons existed. If they didn't want people to own those kinds of weapons, you think they would've mentioned it somewhere...

They did have large cannons that could fire cannister. Better than a ar-15

And they actively encouraged civilians to own those so that the government didn't have to maintain a large navy.

[Ethel mermania]

They did have large cannons that could fire cannister. Better than a ar-15

And they actively encouraged civilians to own those so that the government didn't have to maintain a large navy.

And Indian fighting,

[Labbos]

The American founding fathers were liberal men of the slave-owning merchant class. The constitution was written with their interests in mind, of course the document should evolve to reflect higher interests.

Of course the document should evolve. Both originalists and those who support an evolving constitution agree on that. The Founding Fathers did too, which is why they created a mechanism to amend the constitution.

The issue isn't whether the document should evolve, but rather whether the meaning of the document should change over time without the document evolving. If the document says one thing one day, and the same thing the next day, should the law change anyway? That is the question.

[Jedi Council]

Originalism is silly.

Why should we follow the rules set out by a group of people who could not have imagined the level of complexity or sophistication that had developed since their deaths?

Why should we try to get inside the brain of someone who has been dead for 200 years?

Thank god this isn't even a discussion In Canada.

[Ethel mermania]

Originalism is silly.

Why should we follow the rules set out by a group of people who could not have imagined the level of complexity or sophistication that had developed since their deaths?

Why should we try to get inside the brain of someone who has been dead for 200 years?

Thank god this isn't even a discussion In Canada.

Thank God we are not Canadian.

[Jedi Council]

Originalism is silly.

Why should we follow the rules set out by a group of people who could not have imagined the level of complexity or sophistication that had developed since their deaths?

Why should we try to get inside the brain of someone who has been dead for 200 years?

Thank god this isn't even a discussion In Canada.

Thank God we are not Canadian.

Hoping that your saying that as an inhabitant of a Nordic nation.

[Ethel mermania]

Thank God we are not Canadian.

Hoping that your saying that as an inhabitant of a Nordic nation.

Nope

[Labbos]

Originalism is silly.

Why should we follow the rules set out by a group of people who could not have imagined the level of complexity or sophistication that had developed since their deaths?

We shouldn't. That is why constitutions get to amended. You have provided a strawman argument.

Why should we try to get inside the brain of someone who has been dead for 200 years?

Because if you don't then the law changes without an explicit decision to change it. How can people know what is legal or illegal if case law and/or the constitution haven't changed, but suddenly the legal reality has? I'm all for changing the law, but that should either be by the legislature or clarification from case law.

Thank god this isn't even a discussion In Canada.

Lol. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/06/ ... ional-law/

[Adamede]

Originalism is silly.

Why should we follow the rules set out by a group of people who could not have imagined the level of complexity or sophistication that had developed since their deaths?

That’s why they allowed the constitution to be amended.

Why should we try to get inside the brain of someone who has been dead for 200 years?

Becuase they where smart individuals from the era that modern liberal democracy was born from and still follow many of the principles that arose at that time to this day.

Thank god this isn't even a discussion In Canada.

Thank God Canada and Canadians are irrelevant, especially to this conversation.

[The Emerald Legion]

Why would you even provide for amendments if you intended the "original meaning" to be the end-all be-all?

Why would you provide for amendments if you intended for language to be reinterpreted over time? Amendments are a means of adding or detracting from the text.

Evolving constitutionalism is a means of allowing the judicial branch to effectively legislate.