|
I tend to come down on the side that says that the Constitution provides an intent for how our government was intended to run. For example, the whole idea of checks and balances of power between the judicial, executive, legislative and military was enshrined in our Constitution. Already the check against the military has largely been removed since 1903, when the decentralized State Militias were federalized and put under the control of the federal government.
This is a case where the intent of the Constitution was subverted through legislation.
The right to keep and bear arms has constantly been under attack as something that needs curtailing since supposedly the founders could not envision modern firearms. But the Constitutional intent was clearly to keep military power out of the hands of the federal government, or at least to insure that the people had the means to counter it. Most anti-firearm proponents dismiss this idea out-of-hand as being "obsolete". This again is a case where the intent of the Constitution is being subverted by people who claim that it is no longer relevant.
I think we should err on the side of strict interpretation of our Constitution wherever possible. I think if it is felt that parts of the Constitution truly are obsolete then the proper procedures for amending it need to be followed instead of simply "re-interpreting" what is already written.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
