- Jan 6, 2008
Patently false? You are stating your opinion as if it were a fact.
When I can look up data and information regarding the specific issue, and see the empirical results of that policy, it's no longer opinion. It's fact.
When I claim that 200 years ago, the constitution protected child pornography, that's opinion. Especially when I can lookup the commentary written about the amendment in question and see it did not apply.
Are you saying that there should be no interpretation? OK. Let's call it by a different name: The Supreme Court "clarifies" the constitution. If you don't accept that, then we might as well accept threats of death to the president as a right given by the first Amendment.
It seems that you are now admitting that the constitution is interpreted, but you don't like what the interpretation is. That is all I am saying -- that the Supreme Court must clarify the constitutional meaning when someone challenges the law, and says he is doing something legal.
Why do you say Obama disagrees with me? I will accept that you don't personally like the way the constitution has been interpreted in certain cases, and there are areas that I nor Obama nor many others don't like.
Let's go with your example:
"... to 'interpret' the constitution is to allow the premeditated murder of children..."
and consider mine:
"To not 'interpret' the constitution is to allow child pornography on the internet."
A few centuries ago the framers of the constitution couldn't foresee the internet, so child pornography should be allowed by the first amendment -- according to your logic.
You actually made my case. You just proved my whole point. The first amendment, freedom of speech, was specifically directed at the ability of the public to speak against the government.
Your version of 'interpretation' has lead us to preventing freedom of speech in the form of campaign finance reform, while allowing some of the most vulgar crap to be protected under this amendment, when it was never written for that purpose.
While politicians have in the passed, and are trying to implement again, the fairness doctrine under the unconstitutional control of the FCC, they have protected Lary Flints right to directly slander a private citizen under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
The fact people think that the first amendment has anything at all to do with child pornography, shows exactly how "interpretation" has screwed up our constitution, making it nearly worthless. A large section of our country doesn't even know what rights the constitution was written to protect. It is no wonder we don't even realize what rights we've lost.