HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb. 15, 2006 If I was walking down the road and saw a sign that said "no trespassing" it is to be assumed that I knew what the sign meant. But after reading the sign I come to a different conclusion and walk across property that the owners don't want people on. A judge would ask me "Mr. Chamberlain, why did you trespass on that property? Surely you saw the sign?" If my answer were "well your honor I didn't think the sign applied any more. Signs are living documents who's meaning have to change with the times. Property rights are antiquiqated so the no trespassing sign was irrelevant." If that were my response the judge would be right to say "You're an idiot." Unfortuanetly the living argument is applied to the constitution. The logic of which goes like this: the written word means what the judges want it to mean. For another example under the living argument a law sentencing murderers to life in prison can be used by a judge to legalize marijuana. I know that example is a bit of a stretch, but with our judges who knows what's coming next. I am not a legal or constitutional scholar. But I can tell that there is nothing living about a piece of paper that is the highest law in the land. It is a legal document, a contract between the government and the people. If the constitution can mean anything what we are really saying is that it means nothing at all and we are subject to the whims of unelected jurists. We see this kind of empty headed thinking applied to all kind of constitutional issues. An appeallate court recently ruled that non christian symbols can be displayed in schools while anything portraying Christianity is out. Call me reactionary but doesn't the first amendment have something to do with freedom of religion? But our living document says otherwise. They have already use hair brained constitutional theories to assault our second amendment rights. (point of disclosure: I am not a gun owner, but I fervently believe that individuals have the right to own weapons) the living document crowd says that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right, so it only applies to state militias and the federal government. So the average Joe can't have a gun. It was the living document theory, applied to the constitution of Massachusettes that led to the idea that marriage doesn't mean anything since men can marry men, and women can marry women. I bet John Adams would love that reasoining. It is the living document theory that gave us Roe V. Wade. The greatest judicial atrocity since Dred Scott. It was the political views of seven justices that carried the day not any constitutional realities. If everything written were open to vague and contorted interpratation, then stop can mean go, wrong way can mean right way, thou shalt not commit adultery can mean everyone does it so it's no big deal, 65 mph can mean go as fast as you want(just don't try the living argument on the police officer that pulls you over). Justice Scalia is right, proponents of the living document idea are idiots. So let them go when the sign says stop. It means there will be less of them. ------------ About the author: Craig Chamberlain has written more than 100 articles for Useless-Knowledge.com. Email: craig_chamberlain@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
