Thanks for keeping up on this. It parallels some of the reading, books and podcasts I am encountering. The next election, and how both sides react to it, is really important. I find I am contributing to political campaigns, after starting in 2008, like I never have before. There are some outstanding people running for office around the country.
Apologies for the mistype—but if it implied the individual right to bear arms, the inderstanding of the time was that “arms” were singke shot weapons, Repeating weapons were not developed until almost a half century later. So the understanding at the time, in textualist doctrine, could not have included modern day arms. Textualism is a oretextual construct of propgandists seeking to reinterpret the Constitution to void comity and install a strongman president, destroying the meaning of the Preamble. The textualist tradition demands amendments to the Cinstitution to void its “living@ nature.
In general, I’ve come to believe that our collective veneration of the Constitution as written is misplaced. I will talk about this in some future posts.
Lee, you are a master at portraying the American dilemma. I look forward to more posts . Your assertion that our Constitution is difficult to change is true, but that it is therefore a problem is open to debate. For me, the Presmble is key:”In order to form a more perfect union…” means our Constitution is intended to be an ongoing evolution served by increasingly inclusive voting, a tripartite government linked into unity by an unspoken word in the Constitution: comity - each branch respectful of the other, despite differences in power (e.g. the President has enforcement power while the Supreme Court dies not. The introduction of textualism to resding the Constitution has afforded false justification for locking the Constitution in the past. Example, if the 2nd Amendment were read textually, it could mean that individuals have the right to bear arms, as militias of the day were not always funded to supply arms, as they are today. But read textually, the Constitution addressed the “right of a well regulated militia” and not the rights of individual “people” to bear arms, But if
Great blog post Lee. Just read Stephen Breyer’s book “Reading the Constitution “, which discusses how textualism makes the legal system more Brittle. I’ll be interested to see ideas for systemic change to meet today’s challenges
Thanks, Lee, for tackling a tricky topic. I am continually stunned by the numbers who support Trump and his blatantly dictatorial plans for the future of our country. How can so many people be so unconcerned about this?
I hope/believe it is a Maslow’s hierarchy issue for some: I’m less concerned about Trump’s dictatorial plans if he can deliver prosperity to me personally or at least fight for my prosperity over others (newcomers or other disadvantaged groups).
I don't think that anyone can really answer this question. My theory is that his supporters fall into a few categories: (1) wealthy people who don't care about much other than lower taxes and oligarchic political power; (2) people who believe in Milton Friedman/Fredrich Hayek style economics who say that the free market should decide everything, even though there is no such thing as a free market in real life; (3) people who are struggling in their lives and think or have been told that it is the government's fault so they're going to support anyone who's trying to tear down the government or who believe that immigrants and minorities cause all the problems; (4) people who believe that the US should be a Christian nation governed according to fundamentalist Christian principles (whatever that may mean to them), including that strong, father-like men should lead and women should follow and that Whites are superior to other races.
Thanks for keeping up on this. It parallels some of the reading, books and podcasts I am encountering. The next election, and how both sides react to it, is really important. I find I am contributing to political campaigns, after starting in 2008, like I never have before. There are some outstanding people running for office around the country.
Apologies for the mistype—but if it implied the individual right to bear arms, the inderstanding of the time was that “arms” were singke shot weapons, Repeating weapons were not developed until almost a half century later. So the understanding at the time, in textualist doctrine, could not have included modern day arms. Textualism is a oretextual construct of propgandists seeking to reinterpret the Constitution to void comity and install a strongman president, destroying the meaning of the Preamble. The textualist tradition demands amendments to the Cinstitution to void its “living@ nature.
In general, I’ve come to believe that our collective veneration of the Constitution as written is misplaced. I will talk about this in some future posts.
Lee, you are a master at portraying the American dilemma. I look forward to more posts . Your assertion that our Constitution is difficult to change is true, but that it is therefore a problem is open to debate. For me, the Presmble is key:”In order to form a more perfect union…” means our Constitution is intended to be an ongoing evolution served by increasingly inclusive voting, a tripartite government linked into unity by an unspoken word in the Constitution: comity - each branch respectful of the other, despite differences in power (e.g. the President has enforcement power while the Supreme Court dies not. The introduction of textualism to resding the Constitution has afforded false justification for locking the Constitution in the past. Example, if the 2nd Amendment were read textually, it could mean that individuals have the right to bear arms, as militias of the day were not always funded to supply arms, as they are today. But read textually, the Constitution addressed the “right of a well regulated militia” and not the rights of individual “people” to bear arms, But if
Looking forward to the win-win ideas!
Great blog post Lee. Just read Stephen Breyer’s book “Reading the Constitution “, which discusses how textualism makes the legal system more Brittle. I’ll be interested to see ideas for systemic change to meet today’s challenges
Thanks Lee. Will continue to share with two colleagues each time you go exploring with a post.
Thanks, Lee, for tackling a tricky topic. I am continually stunned by the numbers who support Trump and his blatantly dictatorial plans for the future of our country. How can so many people be so unconcerned about this?
I hope/believe it is a Maslow’s hierarchy issue for some: I’m less concerned about Trump’s dictatorial plans if he can deliver prosperity to me personally or at least fight for my prosperity over others (newcomers or other disadvantaged groups).
I don't think that anyone can really answer this question. My theory is that his supporters fall into a few categories: (1) wealthy people who don't care about much other than lower taxes and oligarchic political power; (2) people who believe in Milton Friedman/Fredrich Hayek style economics who say that the free market should decide everything, even though there is no such thing as a free market in real life; (3) people who are struggling in their lives and think or have been told that it is the government's fault so they're going to support anyone who's trying to tear down the government or who believe that immigrants and minorities cause all the problems; (4) people who believe that the US should be a Christian nation governed according to fundamentalist Christian principles (whatever that may mean to them), including that strong, father-like men should lead and women should follow and that Whites are superior to other races.