On the contrary, this draws upon the history of American jurisprudence. Now, I know that the ords 'activist judges' are abused as all get-out by anybody who sees a decision they won't like, but it's true that judges like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, and some of their descendants and successors, subscribed to a view wherein the intent of the founders counted for little, and that the constitution can be freely reinterpreted in light of social progress.
Now, you may like the concept of a living constitution – but you cannot at once say you adhere to the constitution meaning and reinterpret it freely. Maybe it would be better for the nation – I can certainly not say, for I am not a US citizen - if the American judiciary stuck b judicial activism as a doctrine. But you cannot lay a claim to both adhering a constitution and to reinterpreting it freely, at once. That is a logical contradiction.
A very good book on this subject – although of course biased, since it is written by a Cato-affiliated expert! - is “How the Progressives Re-Wrote the Constitution”, by Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago.
At least I think we understand each other though. We both know that there can be a wide range of political opinions about any particular issue, from basic constitutional law to tax reform. That, honestly, was my only point in this debate. I think this board can use some alternate input from the other 50% of the country, even if that means I get to spend a couple hours a week being spit on
I never expect to change anyones mind on APS, but I do tend to push the idea that just because someone disagrees with the conservative talking point of the day does not make them an unthinking idiot who doesn't understand what government is for. I certainly try not to reject conservative or libertarian ideals out of hand without actual analysis.
On a philosophical level there are three ways to formulate a political opinion:
1) From authority. This means you get your opinions from people around you in 'real life' or on this board, talking heads on TV and radio, or even documents like the Bible or the Constitution.
2) Personal thought. This means you tend to take your life experience and formulate your own responses without direct outside input.
3) Analysis. This means you try to be objective, and attempt to compare political ideas based on something emperical.
Naturally, people use all three of those, but usually favor one or the other. I *try* to use analysis because I think it is more consistent and likely to dredge up helpful solutions. Of course, being human I often fail and react emotionally because politics is about personal perception. But that is the reason I don't think it is a good idea to blindly follow the constitution...I don't take its authority for granted. Do I respect it? Absolutely! It has been rather effective. However, if something in it does not work well, I am not emotionally invested in it. Honestly, I would like to see regular constitutional conventions.
I grew up in a conservative family and went to a very conservative private school. The constitution was right up there with the Bible as something that was simply correct. I was taught it was an authority when it came to politics, basically infallible, along with the founding fathers. So I really do understand the idea that it should be held inviolate, although I do not follow it. To me, it seems silly to argue my points by saying I 'hate' the constitution, or think it is a 'moldy document'. What does that have to do with anything? To have any weight as an argument you have to assume that a document made by human beings is infallible. To me, that seems silly and smells like unhealthy, dogmatic 'patriotism'.
This discussion is about done isn't it? I've made my points, people can apply option 1, 2 or 3 and do whatever they want with it. If I don't post anything else in this topic, I hope no-one gets hurt feelings :)
Last time I stepped into a topic like this it ran for weeks and became one of the most lengthy threads in APS history, and I don't think it deserves that kind of drawn out discussion.
