Why don't people recognize that, when the founders wrote freedom of press into law, they were clearly only talking about newspapers?

There was no way that they could have known technology would advance to a point where freedom of the press would involve big broadcasting networks.

Ive been hearing a very flawed argument that claims only the technology of the time applies to what the Constitution says so why can't we get rid of everything that technologically advanced past the year 1788?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MistyCee

No one but complete idiots,those seeking to live without laws, or those swayed by them, imo, really sees the US Constitution as immutable holy writ, or that a completely literal interpretation of it is worthwhile.

The Founders clearly anticipated that their construct might need to adapt, and they fought like hell about and ultimately compromised over how hard it would be to amend it.

Even then, a few short years after it was passed, Marshall fleshed out Judicial Review, and we've allowed that to expand and sometimes contract, but, at the end of the day, imo, judges, legislators and even voters, ought to be confronting the issues of the day in light of both the wisdom and the foolishness, and the nearsightedness and farsightedness of the founding fathers.

Which is why, basically, I think literally making America Great Again" is a fool's errand.

MickRogers · 26-30, M

@MistyCee I'm totally ok with the Constitution being overthrown. It doesn't even work.

One President instituted the Patriot Act, which made the 4th amendment totally irrelevant. What the hell is to stop the next President by overruling an amendment by making a law the way Bush did for the Patriot Act?

MistyCee

@MickRogers In the abstract, I don't have a problem with ripping up all of our laws, if there's a plan to replace them with something better.

It's the folks who seek to profit from the chaos in the interim or gambling on surviving it and being able to push something worse off for anyone but them that bug me.

Most hardcore Trumpists, imo, seem to fall into the former category, and the fact that they call themselves Conservatives when where they're really trying to do is destroy, really gets to me.

MickRogers · 26-30, M

@MistyCee I think the system the Natives and the Germanic People had is a good idea.

Everyone organizes into communities and the people who the communities represent have a democratic process (no, not a liberal democracy) for deciding how the community runs. People would be motivated to work towards bettering the community rather than every individual trying to make as much cash as they possibly can, which means in this society, there wouldn't be capitalism. You'd basically "be paid" for the portion of the labor you give, but your pay would be basic necessities.

Yes, this society would be stateless. But that doesn't mean there'd be nothing but "societal disorder" going on at all times. When people ask "who'd build the roads?" Well... who builds them now? Workers. Not the state. The state just pretends to be the one to employ them. "But what about rapists?" Well... less than 5% of rapists actually see the inside of prison in today's day. I don't really see what would be different from now. "And murderers?"

Well............................. a lot of them happen to wear blue uniforms and badges. When these murders happen, their victims are killed in broad daylight and the cop never happens to have charges laid against them. But I don't see anybody in particular shaking in their boots at the thought of these depraved killers continuing to walk our streets as well as retaining their position of authority. Which isn't something an individual murderer retains, even if they don't go to prison.

The way I see it, laws only affect the poorest of the poor. They're usually enforced against minorities who sell drugs, for instance, and are never enforced against the ones in power. Derek Chauvin was the first cop who actually became prosecuted, and I believe that was only because kneeling on the back of somebody's neck couldn't actually be argued as being part of police procedure. I think if he just shot Mr Floyd instead, he'd have a way bigger chance at getting off like all his colleagues.

MistyCee

@MickRogers Whoa. That's an awful lot to digest. Seems like you want a simplified economic system and Government though, and you seem to distrust laws because they get ignored by elites?