| | The first issue has to be, "Do we abide by a constitution?" Any constitution.
Before a discussion of how we interpret the document's meaning, and before a discussion of the underlying philosophies that would inform such a discussion, there is another discussion we need to have.
We must understand and commit to the principle of having a document that is the bridge between what we understand our universal, moral rights to be, and the laws of the land that are intended to define the legal parameters and mechanisms for upholding those rights. And we need to understand and commit to the principle that such a document must be used rigorously to decide on the validity of any and all laws.
Looked at like that, it becomes clearer that the two major camps ("originalists" versus "living document" proponents) are really split between those who want to limit the power of government versus those who don't.
|
|
