 |
 |
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Roger Day wrote... >is Alito as terrifying as he seems? From the NY Times > >"In interpreting the Constitution," Judge Alito said Wednesday, "I >think we should look to the text of the Constitution, and we should >look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the >Constitution at the time of its adoption." > >which to me means interpreting the US Constitution through the eyes of >an 18th Century be-wigged White Gentleman. Is it me or does this seem >barmy? Er, I think it's you, Roger. I don't see how one can possibly interpret a constitution, or any other written document, without looking at the text of it, so that part seems tautological. And meanings of words and emphases of concepts change over time. For example, do all the words in: "Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes." have quite the same meaning now as they did when they were written? And does the sentence as a whole have the same meaning? I don't know, but I do think it might be worth checking. Of course, if a constitution needs changing then it should be changed, and if Alito is implying that change is impossible, then that's wrong. But it's not what he *says*. If what was written as "bananas" now means "apples" then the only sensible option is to decide what fruit you want *now* and change the wording to suit. After all, the word might just have easily have changed to mean "peaches" and then we'd all be in trouble. Cheers, -- Peter (back after a long absence) http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/ http://peterhoward.org