Warp wrote:
> of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
> existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
> Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)

Adding text to the end is how we change it.  One amendment says "By the way, 
now the federal government is allowed to pass laws about alcohol, too." 
Another, later, says "That was a mistake. The federal government no longer 
gets to do that."

>   This goes sometimes to such ridiculous extents as there being a small
> controversy on whether a small smudge in article 1, section 10, is accidental
> or really a comma. If it's really a comma (rather than an accidental drop of
> ink), the sentence could ostensibly be interpreted slightly differently.

I think this is true of a great number of legal systems, really. Arguing 
over the precise meaning of sentences and words and asking whether they 
apply in this particular case is exactly what the whole appeals process is 
about.

I'm not sure what drop of ink you're talking about. Are you exaggerating for 
effect, or have you actually heard an argument about this? (I *have* heard 
that in some contract disputes, but not the Constitution.)

>   It feels like the Constitution is holier than the Bible itself. Not even
> a small smudge can be altered! Instead, lots of speculation and controversy
> arise about what is it that the authors really meant when they wrote the
> constitution.

It's the highest law in the country. If you can convince the supreme court 
that the law as written means a certain thing, regardless of *why* it means 
that, then that decision is enforced on everyone in the country. So, yeah, 
it's a lot like the Bible, were God actually real and enforcing it. :-)

>   That is the background under which the second amendment was written.
> Nowadays it's used to argue for the right of people to own fully automatic
> rapid-fire weapons such as the M16 rifle or the Browning M2 machine gun.
> Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what the authors had in mind when they wrote
> the second amendment.

Chances are, it is.  The whole point of the second amendment is to give the 
people forming the government the ability to overthrow the government if it 
goes badly.

Now, admittedly, it turns out that *today*, we've figured out that this 
"democracy" thing and this "federal" thing isn't too bad and is not too hard 
to steer. But at the time, just coming off King's rule and feudalism, it 
wasn't really obvious that a new democratic government was going to work 
out.  And, really, it wasn't until after the US Civil War that the federal 
government really took over the governing from the individual states.

>   The original constitution of the United States is an invaluable piece of
> history, but where is this idea coming from that it's perfect, infallible
> and completely applicable to the modern world, over 200 years later?

It's not. Most people don't think it is. That's why we have amendments every 
few decades, including amendments that contradict what's already written. 
It's just that the legal mechanisms for amending the constitution don't say 
"cross out this text". Many other laws in this country do, but we just don't 
do that with the federal constitution.  It's not because there's some 
strange reverence.

Some judges think it should be interpreted as "original intent". Some think 
it should be interpreted in a more modern way. It's an ongoing battle, with 
people picking sides not out of any particular philosophy but out of

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message