tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post4279423645835598327..comments2023-10-20T05:51:51.625-04:00Comments on The THINK 3 INSTITUTE: We are governed by the Constitution, not customSamuel Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-59545758716918773592016-02-18T19:08:20.250-05:002016-02-18T19:08:20.250-05:00This is exactly where Scalia failed as an "or...This is exactly where Scalia failed as an "originalist," or else exposed a fallacy of orignialism, because, as I already noted, in his gun-rights decisions Scalia read a "natural rights" ideology into the Second Amendment that made it self-evident to him, if not to generations of predecessors, that the Framers' language recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms. Originalists also take it for granted that the Declaration of Independence clarifies most ambiguities in the Constitution, and since Jefferson affirms natural rights in the Declaration, originalists assume that the Constitution recognizes natural rights even though Jefferson had nothing to do with writing it. If originalism means what it sounds like, I would note that the Declaration is nowhere in the Constitution acknowledged as an overriding authority or key for interpretation, while the much-adored Ninth Amendment is too vague to serve as an affirmation of any specific "natural right." Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-88309950223521544702016-02-18T18:47:05.390-05:002016-02-18T18:47:05.390-05:00But if repugnicans are going to insist on "or...But if repugnicans are going to insist on "original intent", lets start by taking a real close look at the second amendment, in full, no just the part that says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed..." And we can keep to the original intent by requiring everyone who owns a firearm to be part of a "well-<b>regulated</b> militia" and are ready to be called upon to ensure "the security of a free state". After all, the tree of liberty must be fed with the blood of patriots and who claims to be the most patriotic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-48977956657859089452016-02-16T19:29:56.712-05:002016-02-16T19:29:56.712-05:00It seems to me that, given the fact that it wasn&#...It seems to me that, given the fact that it wasn't carved into stone, and that it is set up to be amended, pretty much says that the repugnicans are wrong. Not that they are capable of admitting to ever being wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-62224480332081691092016-02-16T19:24:01.803-05:002016-02-16T19:24:01.803-05:00Republicans blame Democrats for violating the orig...Republicans blame Democrats for violating the original intent of the Framers, and Democrats blame Republicans for failing to respect what they call the living Constitution. Each is convinced that the other side's interpretation is utterly wrong and in need of correction, but both are guilty of reading things into the document that aren't there, most notably "natural rights" as imagined by Republicans. I assume that if Hamilton, Madison, et al, meant the Constitution to be interpreted in terms of natural rights, as Scalia believed, they'd have mentioned those in the Preamble. It may be that constitutional jurisprudence depends on a consensus on values that no longer exists in this country. The problem won't be solved by any new constitutional convention, however, so long as ideological bipolarchy persists. Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-50847059856303599332016-02-16T14:27:54.779-05:002016-02-16T14:27:54.779-05:00If the supreme court can so easily overturn its ow...If the supreme court can so easily overturn its own decisions, then what is the point of the supreme court? My understanding is that one of their duties is to decide the constitutionality of laws passed by the government. If they are so willing and able to flip-flop on an issue, depending on whether there is a majority of "conservative" or "liberal" justices, then they serve no real purpose and we should consider eliminating or replacing them with something that works.<br /><br />Not that I wouldn't want to see that particular decision overturned, but in general, it seems to me that their decision should mean something more than temporary partisan victories.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com