[pullquote]The constitution means now what it did long ago.[\/pullquote]<\/p>\n
I don’t much care for the term “original intent”. The constitution has a meaning and that meaning does not change over time. Time does pass and things do change, but if there was intent at the beginning then that intent can hardly change when the ones who intended are gone.<\/p>\n
There is exactly one way to change the meaning of the constitution, and that is through Amendments. Anything else is interpretation, which is good and absolutely necessary to the functioning of society, but it does not supplant the intent. Unfortunately, many today believe that interpretation does supplant intent either from their own ignorance or the ignorance of their teachers. Don’t believe it.<\/p>\n
The constitution means now what it did long ago. The struggle is not between two camps which disagree as to that meaning, but between one camp which acknowledges and defends that meaning, and another which rejects and attacks it.<\/p>\n
Interpretation is indeed important. \u00a0Many Islamic societies are so broken because the “the door of interpretation is closed” to a great number of influential experts. \u00a0 \u00a0Islam as it exists now in many instances combines the ethics of the Inquisition with the innovation of the Amish, with predictable results*.<\/p>\n
But too much one way is as bad as too much the other. \u00a0 Our Constitution is intended to preserve our freedoms, that we may govern ourselves and innovate as the situation requires or permits. \u00a0It does this by expressly limiting that government and by intentionally hobbling innovations of government over the people. \u00a0“Gridlock” in Washington is no accident, and bipartisanship is merely collusion by two parties to form a bloc against the voting populace. \u00a0The Constitution provides a protection of our liberty against the depredations of a hasty government,\u00a0which is the end of innovation, not the source.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
* I will write a post on Ijtihad in the near future, so if you would criticize for speaking too hastily of interpretation in Islam, please be patient.<\/p>\n
[pullquote]The constitution means now what it did long ago.[\/pullquote]<\/p>\n
I don’t much care for the term “original intent”. The constitution has a meaning and that meaning does not change over time. Time does pass and things do change, but if there was intent at the beginning then that intent can hardly change when the ones who intended are gone.<\/p>\n
There is exactly one way to change the meaning of the constitution, and that is through Amendments. Anything else is interpretation, which is good and absolutely necessary to the functioning of society, but it does not supplant the intent. Unfortunately, many today believe that interpretation does supplant intent either from their own ignorance or the ignorance of their teachers. Don’t believe it.<\/p>\n
The constitution means now what it did … Continue reading