Tweet
Re: Undecided voter...who the hell should I vote for?
Well, first of all, I denounce and reject the way you've framed the question. It is not a choice between the studious and academic "deriving the purpose and focus of the founding fathers" and the free-wheeling, party-time "making it up as we go along." More substantively, though, I don't think I even agree that that accurately sets forth the two primary approaches, because the former leaves more room for interpretation than most strict constructionists would like, but that's really hair-splitting.
In my mind, there are two approaches to constitutional interpretation: (1) the "strict constructionist" approach, where the goal is to apply the letter of the constitution as closely as possible, avoiding interpretation at all except as necessary to determine what the founders meant at the time; and (2) what I'll call the "living document" approach, where an effort is made to apply the underlying policies and principles of the founding fathers to make a judgment upon how the founders would come down on an issue (if at all) if given the opportunity to do so today.
I tend to follow the second approach. The world is a very different place than it was in 1787 and I don't have a problem if we as a society make an effort to interpret this 200+ year old document in a manner that is more consistent with the world in which we currently live, provided it happens in a rational and thoughtful manner. I'm not talking about changing the language as we go along, but interpreting the language in a manner that is consistent with the original intent and underlying purpose of the Constitution, but keeping the realities of modern living in mind.
He has been consistent, I'll give him that. Doesn't mean he's been right, though. For other examples of wrong-headed but consistent-to-a-fault people see:
Bush, George W.
Cheney, Richard
Rumsfeld, Donald
Well, first of all, I denounce and reject the way you've framed the question. It is not a choice between the studious and academic "deriving the purpose and focus of the founding fathers" and the free-wheeling, party-time "making it up as we go along." More substantively, though, I don't think I even agree that that accurately sets forth the two primary approaches, because the former leaves more room for interpretation than most strict constructionists would like, but that's really hair-splitting.
In my mind, there are two approaches to constitutional interpretation: (1) the "strict constructionist" approach, where the goal is to apply the letter of the constitution as closely as possible, avoiding interpretation at all except as necessary to determine what the founders meant at the time; and (2) what I'll call the "living document" approach, where an effort is made to apply the underlying policies and principles of the founding fathers to make a judgment upon how the founders would come down on an issue (if at all) if given the opportunity to do so today.
I tend to follow the second approach. The world is a very different place than it was in 1787 and I don't have a problem if we as a society make an effort to interpret this 200+ year old document in a manner that is more consistent with the world in which we currently live, provided it happens in a rational and thoughtful manner. I'm not talking about changing the language as we go along, but interpreting the language in a manner that is consistent with the original intent and underlying purpose of the Constitution, but keeping the realities of modern living in mind.
He has been consistent, I'll give him that. Doesn't mean he's been right, though. For other examples of wrong-headed but consistent-to-a-fault people see:
Bush, George W.
Cheney, Richard
Rumsfeld, Donald
Comment