A good number of politicians and judges want society to be strictly bound to the morality and worldview of wealthy aristocrats from the 18th century.
What's funny is that Constitution itself has mechanisms to change it! It's such a stupid thing--Originalism that is.1) The vast majority of people have no clue what it means.
2) The Constitution is viewed as the holy grail for many people and we have placed our founding fathers on a pedestal that makes them seem like geniuses centuries ahead of their time. Ironically enough Hamilton (Broadway musical) only furthered this notion. So even if you were able to explain the it to normal people they would give deference to the past.
Much like religious scriptures, there's also a lot of picking and choosing. Hey, let's focus on sexuality but ignore the clear call to justice and helping the oppressed.They don't think about it
If they do they think the difficulty in changing our constitution shows how good and solid the original document is
A good number of politicians and judges want society to be strictly bound to the morality and worldview of wealthy aristocrats from the 18th century.
It's because we're a young country. So the founding fathers became a national myth here.Because (and this is looking at America from the outside), most of America treats their founding fathers as infallible deities, unique in history.
That's not inconsistent. Originalism as a legal philosophy doesn't say anything about the wisdom of amending the Constitution; indeed, it takes the view that the amending formula is the proper way to change things, rather than judges updating the language to suit what they see as the judges' own preferences.What's funny is that Constitution itself has mechanisms to change it! It's such a stupid thing--Originalism that is.
The Constitution should be treated as the holy grail of any developed society, it's just preposterous to interpret it by the prism of the original intent of the founders. The reason people don't view it as extremist is the fact that even if the court is widely regarded as being made up of partisans, there is this belief that the law is interpreted "technically" and that there are limits to how a Justice can spin the Constitution to fit a predetermined decision. Thing is, there really aren't, it's all based on institutional forbearance that relies on self-restraint by those who have final word on what the law actually means.1) The vast majority of people have no clue what it means.
2) The Constitution is viewed as the holy grail for many people and we have placed our founding fathers on a pedestal that makes them seem like geniuses centuries ahead of their time. Ironically enough Hamilton (Broadway musical) only furthered this notion. So even if you were able to explain it to the average person they would like give deference to the past.
Thanks for education here.That's not inconsistent. Originalism as a legal philosophy doesn't say anything about the wisdom of amending the Constitution; indeed, it takes the view that the amending formula is the proper way to change things, rather than judges updating the language to suit what they see as the judges' own preferences.
Originalism isn't the same thing as saying that the Founding Fathers were God-inspired visionaries, though there is obviously overlap between those constituencies. It is a philosophy about what the proper role for the judiciary is.
I honestly don't think the mainstream public even knows. Originalism is a super deep cut for even casual news watchers.
This is not a diss btw. But our civic education here is garbage. I remember a study that showed most Americans failed a citizenship test.
Moreover, look at the voting populace. They barely understand separation of powers, how laws are created and passed, etc.
Schoolhouse Rock for the Zoomer gen is sorely needed!Lots of Americans on Era barely understand the separation of powers, how laws are created and passed, etc. And I would consider folks here to be at least slightly more informed than the average voter.
I was pretty much taught in school that the founding fathers were divinely inspired, and that the age and continued function of the US constitution was not a fault, but evidence of it's greatness and the divine inspiration. And that was public school. Gotta love the south.
McConnell being the one who shows the soul prison device is so *chef kiss*Should Obama Blow The Silver Horn The Founding Fathers Left In Case The Country Ever Needed Them?
Subscribe to The Onion on YouTube: http://bit.ly/xzrBUAThe Founding Fathers promised to return upon hearing the enchanted horn, but warned it should only be ...www.youtube.com
The Constitution should be treated as the holy grail of any developed society, it's just preposterous to interpret it by the prism of the original intent of the founders. The reason people don't view it as extremist is the fact that even if the court is widely regarded as being made up of partisans, there is this belief that the law is interpreted "technically" and that there are limits to how a Justice can spin the Constitution to fit a predetermined decision. Thing is, there really aren't, it's all based on institutional forbearance that relies on self-restraint by those who have final word on what the law actually means.
I was pretty much taught in school that the founding fathers were divinely inspired, and that the age and continued function of the US constitution was not a fault, but evidence of it's greatness and the divine inspiration. And that was public school. Gotta love the south.
Why? There are better documents that established far more resilient democracies and enshrine many more rights with greater clarity than the US constitution.The Constitution should be treated as the holy grail of any developed society