TheJPRD, et al,
I agree with you, that The Founders wanted to create a constitution that would stand the test of time; lasting forever. And to that end, I think they wrote The Constitution with that in mind. It expresses the foundational principles in such a manner that, for the most part, have been applicable for the last two centuries - adapting to change in the nation and the world in ways far beyond anything The Founders could conceive.
Whether The Constitution was brilliantly written and adopted by a very unlikely band of genius, or scribed through the human hand by devine intervention, or whether we (the nation) were just plan lucky, we will never truly know. But the legacy of The Founders has has been passed-on, generation through generation, and built upon, to form the America we have today
.
First, allow me to say that it's refreshing to find someone with a "somewhat" liberal view on things discuss issues intelligently and civilly. One can never be certain how long civility will last when discussing "politics". I've been guilty of incivility myself on occasion, but always when dealing with leftist shrubs who don't care about the truth. However, it seems to me that civility should be easy if the involved parties have objective minds.
I believe that God's hand did indeed guide many of our founders. We should always remember, however, some folks tend to heed God's word better than others.
(COMMENT)
Clearly --- there will be, for its term of life, two competing views that were never stipulated by
The Founders.
- Should The Constitution never be changed? Is The Constitution absolutely rigid, rock solid, engraved in stone, and beyond interpretation, only to exist in the vacuum of society to address 18th Century concerns, but never to evolve into the 21st Century? This is the view of the fundamentalist. That The Constitution states basic principles that can never be interpreted in vernacular of modern times.
- OR, is The Constitution such, that given change - its principles are adaptable and the intent of The Founders can be interpreted and applied to 21st Century controversial issues.
Except as to the expression of change and amendment in
Article V, it does not appear that
The Founders actually address the issue of adaptation or interpretation. So it is, that we must generally ask the question in the form of an "originalist:" What opinion or intent would
The Founders express if they were addressing the question at hand?
Our founders obviously believed that the Constitution needed a mechanism by which it could be changed; hence, the mechanism of "Amendment". I argue that there are indeed aspects of the Constitution that require "interpretation". Having said that, I argue that the basic principles stated or strongly implied in our Constitution MUST be left alone and not bastardized by activist, judicial rulings! The question you stated in your last sentence above is Dead-On!
Case In Point #1: Abortion! There is NO interpretation of any section of the Constitution that justifies the taking of innocent life, NONE! If we ask the question you stated above, the founders would never have considered abortion a "Right"!
Case In Point #2: Gun Control! Not only would the founders have been opposed to gun control, they specifically stated a right to bear arms! Any judge who'd rule in favor of gun-control being applied to law-abiding citizens should be impeached and disbarred for life.
I do believe the founders would have supported interpretation of the Constitution if and when justified. I'm certain that such interpretation would have only been supported if the basis was "original intent".
How would
The Founders addressed the late 20th Century issues of:
- Legal representation for the accused.
- Minority Civil Rights
- Search and Seizure
- Electronic and Technical Surveillance
- Lawful Detention, Habeas Corpus
- Foreign Military Engagements without a Declaration of War
- Economic Monopolies
- Just to name a few!
It would be interesting to see how
The Founders would have reacted to the recent case on Immigration Law. The competitive question on "Strict Reading" vs "Interpretation" will be an ongoing battle forever. It is likely that neither is absolutely correct, but that each has a part to play in the struggle for balance. It is more likely that
The Founders intended to place their trust in the hands of future generations - that they would act in the best interest of the nation.
Most Respectfully,
R
Your list is worthy of discussion. I suggest, however, that a separate thread might be the most appropriate way of doing so. Why don't you pick one item at a time, and begin a thread by stating your position on how the issue might have been viewed by the founders?
