Of course it's relevant; I don't (or can't) see how it could fail to be.
Controlling, however, it canot be.
Strict, original constructionists are like literalists on the Bible. There is merit to the desire to honor the original intent, but it is impossible to accurately achieve the goal. Nothing written is done so without context. There is no "perfect" text. Words are laden with value, like it or not. These values change, and some are lost forever.
Perhaps most important is the fact that the document was created as a foundation for a government. It does not specify the manner in which it is to be interpreted. We must assume it failed to provide this instruction intentionally. Consequently, the manner in which it is to be interpreted can legitimately evolve over time, and should. The only truly legitimate way to be an original constructionist would be to adopt an amendment specifying the manner in which it ought to be interpreted.
That said, the context of what was going on at the time it was written is of paramount importance in appropriately interpreting the meaning of the words used.
Finding a niche should not be pursued until you have settled, as I did, on a crypt. Possibly original, but with few visitors. While there are only a dozen original news sources and millions of me-too blogs, you can still add value by pointing out connections from the big stories to the lives of us ordinary folks. There will be effects we hadn't thought of, little acts of protest and rectification, small causes and local heros to report/support because they point toward solutions to the big problems. A hundred thousand of us marching in protest, or a million, are not all expected to have a unique sign or have authored the speeches. doesn't matter if we march down a street or an information superhighway. Just being one of a number helps.
If, like me, you check your hit counter more ofen than a movie star checks the mirror, thats another problem
If you mean to analyze the flaws of attempts [how could they be successes?] to interpret the constitution strictly and literally, you might want to start with Justice Breyer's book "Acive Liberty"
It got a good write up in the New Yorker:
In “Active Liberty,” Breyer
argues that the framers never
intended for future generations
of jurists to resolve
contemporary controversies by
guessing how the framers
themselves would have resolved
them. Instead, their goal was to
promote what Breyer, quoting the
nineteenth-century French
political writer Benjamin
Constant, calls “active and
constant participation in
collective power”—in other
words, “active liberty.”
I came across this via Mumon.
this is the most interesting topic i have seen after a full day of looking at blogs....thanks
It is certainly necessary to interpret the Constitution in the light of the historical milieu. Here is but one reason why:
The framers were aware that the colonies had different official religions, and most colonies required residents to pay a tithe to that religion, even if the resident belonged to a different religion. The framers were aware that those not of the official religion were often persecuted by physical assaults. In this light it is quite clear what they intended by "freedom of religion" in the 1st amendment.
We may not be able to know all the thoughts of those dead men, but we certainly know a lot of those thoughts regarding the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, for one, give many insights into the intent behind clauses in the Constitution. Most of the framers were prolific writers (of personal correspondence and of books). We can see from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists (and also from his tombstone) that he felt freedom of religion to be of great importance.
We can use similar research to determine the intent of the other framers. There were three things they held to that should be considered important. They felt that the Constitution was an unfinished work and that it was brought into existence in an imperfect state to fill a gap quickly. They felt that the Constitution would be amended frequently as times and circumstances changed. The felt that impeachment, particularly of the President, would be quite common.
Times do change. The whole reason for having a President was that Congress was not expected to meet frequently. In order to represent your constituency you must spend a lot of time there talking with your constituents; yet travel times to New York (later Washington) were long. At the time there was no requirement for a continuous stream of legislation. So a President would be on hand permanently to keep things ticking over, and if he exceeded his powers he could be impeached.
If the Constitution were written today, with jet aircraft bringing travel times down from days or weeks to hours, perhaps the executive branch would not exist (or would have very much reduced powers).
Monkey wrench here. Wasn't there something about a constitutional convention every so often?
Doesn't this point to an ongoing development of the origin document?
So here is your first question:
Is the historical milieu of the framers relevant to a country that was far more complex than anything they could have conceived?
As I see it, phallusies hopefully avoided,(you did throw alot of cock out there)I see an answer form,
.....YES! but of course and quite literally. (maybe...)
Should we invoke laws, we must break them; BECAUSE, the very same predicament of perceived necessity that might establish such governing rules,
is in turn, the same fable of mind and persistent origin, or if you will circumstance, which allots choice to a potentially governed entity, and makes haste to boast of itself by nature of being circumstance; as it has become the unanswered original influence of mortal demise.
It is to pursue(the allotted choice)
life,
liberty
and happiness.
Beyond our miserable hopes of conformity lies the truth of how these pursuits are defined- within a united state of mind. (imagine)
The side question is this:
COULD THEY HAVE CONCEIVED OF THIS COUNTRY THAT "WAS" COMPLEX?
I see EITHER a grammatical error in the paste tense use of 'was', in reference to the milieu which preceeded the occurence; OR, myself, I see an allusion to my own arguement
regarding the timeless nature of error via pursuance.
And in hopes of having enlightened you, as you statured in your invitation to possibly procure,
I believe my point is best exampled by the question you have asked, in that it has, as I see it, broken your own rule.
Your question is I believe both a COMPLEX CAUSE and JOINT EFFECT CAUSAL FALLACY.
The now complex country and irrelevance in regard to the historical milieu are in fact
complex clause deficient and joint effects of the underlying cause
of error via pursuance.
The word I will choose for this encompassing cause is, EVOLUTION.
Does the Constitutional framework, now in days of perilous complex discord, reveal a need to scrutinize
same framework? If so, it is a sturdy frame worthy by it's own reproach.
And therefore, dear sir,
what conception was amiss where amendments are afforded? Where universality and commonality are bound with a stance on equality?
Does complexity or some magnitude of claimed perception made by the contemporary today dim the light of men's hope into the past? Where was the nature of a hard choice held away from these men that we now are to jump up and stand on something as IRRELEVANT as the times of today? Would I put a pedestal minded society of today in a position of having greater insight on themselves?
Wouldn't be prudent!
Count on an oldfriend
oldfriend | 02.10.06 - 5:45 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Truth is the unalterable, unchangeable law, ever. What is truth? Law! What is Law? Love. What is love? God. What is God? Law and love. These are as the cycle of truth itself. And wherever ye are, in whatever clime, its ever the same. For, as it is said of him, He is the same yesterday, today and forever - unalterable! Not as the Medes and Persians that were built upon fallible conditions, but as: I AM THAT I AM! That is true. Search it in thy inner self. Cultivate it in thy mind and it will alter the results in thy physical being. Yes, ye will have much to live for. For everyone will be your friend, as ye have something to give to everyone. Not as that which brings fault or brings want, and indeed makes an individual poor,
but that which is a blessing to the mind and to the soul, by giving grains of truth that take from no one, but add something to everyone.
principal via relevance
Hi Nino, Tripped into your blog googling for a Disraeli quote and found a different one than I was seeking, but glad I found you! My blog is eclectic in form (more accurately, it has no discernable form, a prerogative I enjoy) and I don't ponder politics beyond the headlines and the absurdities they render on the presidunce and his viktums. (Occasionally, a new word delights me, how it rolls off my tongue...this presidunce thing is a phase I'll assuredly evolve past one day soon.) Regards, Boston
Commenting by HaloScan
