[Politics]
In an attempt to redirect some of the energy I put into posting on other forums into a more public location, I'm going to start copying (and providing context, if needed) some of my more coherent posts here for wider consumption. Comment, discuss, argue, or ignore as you will- the only thing I object to is personal attacks.
The question at hand- Should the Constitution be interpreted in the context of what the Framers believed to be the rights and freedoms that people were entitled to? (Can/should courts enforce "rights" that contradict their beliefs without the need for new amendments?)
quote:
If tomorrow morning a movement started to eliminate the discrimination against children in terms of the right to work in a factory, and you found a judge to declare that it is unconstitutional to tell a 7 year old that he cannot work in a factory, on what basis would you argue with them? How would you say to them: "no, that isn't what the constitution says" if everything shifts around with "circumstances". Other than your own moral disapproval of having 7 year olds on assembly lines, what argument could you possible muster without being a total hypocrite?
Documented historical evidence that allowing minors the "freedom" to work in factories leads, in fact, to a greater restriction on their freedom than what they gain by being protected from coerced slavery, both in the short and the long term.
There is no constitutional basis for striking down child labor laws because doing so restricts freedoms to a greater degree than it increases them. In fact, said laws, a product of the 1930s and 40s, stand as an excellent example of something that wasn't even considered in the time of the founding fathers, but were found to be perfectly within the spirit of their intent when the matter became a notable issue.
I think the overall argument is being miscast- yes the original intent of the framers should be respected, but it must be understood that said intent was explicitly not a wide net of imposed contemporary moralism. The intent, as represented by the 9th and 10th amendments, was to protect personal freedom where ever possible.
It does not matter what they knew or thought of the issue of same sex marriage; their view on individual issues are irrelevant and even possibly outright wrong. And, realizing that such understandings might shift with time, even if they didn't know what might shift, they left us with an easy legal framework to ensure that freedom would be protected in any regard rather than their personal moral stances or understandings.
(Source: http://www.ornery.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=013161 )
The question at hand- Should the Constitution be interpreted in the context of what the Framers believed to be the rights and freedoms that people were entitled to? (Can/should courts enforce "rights" that contradict their beliefs without the need for new amendments?)
quote:
If tomorrow morning a movement started to eliminate the discrimination against children in terms of the right to work in a factory, and you found a judge to declare that it is unconstitutional to tell a 7 year old that he cannot work in a factory, on what basis would you argue with them? How would you say to them: "no, that isn't what the constitution says" if everything shifts around with "circumstances". Other than your own moral disapproval of having 7 year olds on assembly lines, what argument could you possible muster without being a total hypocrite?
Documented historical evidence that allowing minors the "freedom" to work in factories leads, in fact, to a greater restriction on their freedom than what they gain by being protected from coerced slavery, both in the short and the long term.
There is no constitutional basis for striking down child labor laws because doing so restricts freedoms to a greater degree than it increases them. In fact, said laws, a product of the 1930s and 40s, stand as an excellent example of something that wasn't even considered in the time of the founding fathers, but were found to be perfectly within the spirit of their intent when the matter became a notable issue.
I think the overall argument is being miscast- yes the original intent of the framers should be respected, but it must be understood that said intent was explicitly not a wide net of imposed contemporary moralism. The intent, as represented by the 9th and 10th amendments, was to protect personal freedom where ever possible.
It does not matter what they knew or thought of the issue of same sex marriage; their view on individual issues are irrelevant and even possibly outright wrong. And, realizing that such understandings might shift with time, even if they didn't know what might shift, they left us with an easy legal framework to ensure that freedom would be protected in any regard rather than their personal moral stances or understandings.
(Source: http://www.ornery.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=013161 )