Ed Markey: "Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic."

[invictus]

So what is it that you’re afraid of? You seriously think anyone is going to deprive women of the right to vote in this day in age? Are you concerned that blacks are suddenly going to be counted as less than one person again for purposes of representation? I’m more worried about what could happen if the Constitution can be arbitrarily interpreted to mean whatever people want it to mean rather than how it was written.

I'm not afraid of anything. My point was that the constitution is up for revision. That it's not some untouchable, flawless legal document and as we go, new issues arise.

[Peter1469]

I'm not afraid of anything. My point was that the constitution is up for revision. That it's not some untouchable, flawless legal document and as we go, new issues arise.

We use Article V for that. Not a judge's whim.

[invictus]

We use Article V for that. Not a judge's whim.

When did I ever say something that would make you think it would be up to a judge????

There are serious hurdles to add or remove an amendment in the constitution. As it should be. That wasn't my point though. I made my point pretty clear.

[Tahuyaman]

I don’t know why liberal are so intent on destroying the constitution and granting more and more power and authority to government.

They claim to believe in the idea of government by the people and for the people, but they also support removing all obstacles to an overbearing government which defies that concept.

Once government has no obstacles in its path it becomes totalitarian. Then it turns on even those who supported the means by which they seized this power.

[Mister D]

Well, this nation did start on a foot that said blacks were three fifths of a person and women couldn't vote... Nothing about homosexuals though. So, to a degree, it wasn't some perfect document that needed no revision.

Most men couldn't vote and the 3/5ths Compromise wasn't a philosophical or anthropological statement on Africans.

Jesus...

[Chris]

I'm not afraid of anything. My point was that the constitution is up for revision. That it's not some untouchable, flawless legal document and as we go, new issues arise.

We all know that, it's stated in Article V of the Constitution.

[CaveDog]

I'm not afraid of anything. My point was that the constitution is up for revision. That it's not some untouchable, flawless legal document and as we go, new issues arise.

Depends. On administrative details it can be changed. On questions of rights it generally can’t be. Where “unalienable” rights are concerned the presumption is they are rooted in natural law, which does not change, therefore must be interpreted to mean now what they meant then.

[invictus]

We all know that, it's stated in Article V of the Constitution.

So why the outrage when someone questions the constitution?

[Chris]

So why the outrage when someone questions the constitution?

There's a difference between questioning the Constitution and seeking to change it appropriately.

[invictus]

There's a difference between questioning the Constitution and seeking to change it appropriately.

Yeah, to change anything you have to question the current state of affairs. There will always be those that are for changes and those that are against. In reality, it more of a 'how dare you question it' type of thing.