The "living document" nonsense rears its ugly head again.
The Federalist Papers explain in excruciating detail the meaning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and the reasoning behind all aspects of it. Because this fact is inconvenient to liberals and progressives, and because changing the Constitution is a deliberately difficult process, they created the concept of the "living document".
What this means is, because the Constitution itself is so difficult to alter, then we simply declare that the meaning of the words in the Constitution are subject to change as the times change.
To simplify, it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
To simplify further, the "living document" concept is complete horseshit.
It is laughable that there are "Constitutional scholars" who today fancy themselves as greater authorities on the Constitution than the man who wrote it - James Madison. How do such men take themselves seriously?
The greatest flaw in logic with the "living document" theory is glaringly obvious. If the meaning of a word, or group of words, is always subject to change, then those words mean nothing because they can mean anything one wishes them to.
I notice that ol' Bloomin'idiot pretty much goes exclusively after the 2A, which was the tool used in the mad mass shootings and bombings. If he wants to shred the Constitution so badly, why not go after the 1A (religion), the root cause of the shootings and bombings? Could it be that if he goes down that path, he might find the FedGub dictating against his own chosen religion (liberalism)??
Time for this dwarf to disappear into the mines and leave normal folks be. I for one have about as much respect for his "advice" as I would for Roger Moores
4 comments:
Can a person become this detached from reality without doing something irrational? Oh wait - thats rhetorical.
The "living document" nonsense rears its ugly head again.
The Federalist Papers explain in excruciating detail the meaning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and the reasoning behind all aspects of it.
Because this fact is inconvenient to liberals and progressives, and because changing the Constitution is a deliberately difficult process, they created the concept of the "living document".
What this means is, because the Constitution itself is so difficult to alter, then we simply declare that the meaning of the words in the Constitution are subject to change as the times change.
To simplify, it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
To simplify further, the "living document" concept is complete horseshit.
It is laughable that there are "Constitutional scholars" who today fancy themselves as greater authorities on the Constitution than the man who wrote it - James Madison. How do such men take themselves seriously?
The greatest flaw in logic with the "living document" theory is glaringly obvious. If the meaning of a word, or group of words, is always subject to change, then those words mean nothing because they can mean anything one wishes them to.
I notice that ol' Bloomin'idiot pretty much goes exclusively after the 2A, which was the tool used in the mad mass shootings and bombings. If he wants to shred the Constitution so badly, why not go after the 1A (religion), the root cause of the shootings and bombings? Could it be that if he goes down that path, he might find the FedGub dictating against his own chosen religion (liberalism)??
B Woodman
III-PER
Time for this dwarf to disappear into the mines and leave normal folks be.
I for one have about as much respect for his "advice" as I would for Roger Moores
Post a Comment