Re: DS Alert (8-21)
- From: "Pat O'Neill" <patdoneill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Aug 2005 13:15:52 -0700
Don Del Grande wrote:
> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
> > They're called "Amendments," duckhole . . . (like I can't tell
> >what he's *really* talking about):
> >
> > <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20050821>
>
> Actually, "living document" doesn't refer to amending the Constitution
> as much as it does changing its meaning through Supreme Court
> decisions (wasn't there a recent one that overturned a previous
> precedent, and the majority opinion said that the original decision
> needed to be "revisited" in light of changes in public views?).
>
If all previous SC decisions are to be considered inviolable, does that
mean Dred Scott is still the law of the land, or Plessy v. Ferguson?
As long as the Constitution's authors (or the authors of the various
amendments) did not leave us precise instructions, on the order of "by
free speech, we meant....", then, of course the Constitution is a
"living document," open to interpretation by ensuing generations in
light of their understanding of the words.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DS Alert (8-21)
- From: Don Del Grande
- Re: DS Alert (8-21)
- References:
- DS Alert (8-21)
- From: Antonio E . Gonzalez
- Re: DS Alert (8-21)
- From: Don Del Grande
- DS Alert (8-21)
- Prev by Date: Re: FBOFW 8-18-05: It just gets worse...
- Next by Date: Re: Curtis (8-21)
- Previous by thread: Re: DS Alert (8-21)
- Next by thread: Re: DS Alert (8-21)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
