Russ writes on the Brexit thread: "There was nothing “vague” about the Constitution, much as the left would like to believe that. Unfortunately, as TS Eliot pointed out: “Words strain, Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, Under the tension, slip, slide, perish, Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, Will not stay still.” So the intent of amendments has been to keep the “originalism,” which you disdain, but to apply it to changes in our condition and in our understanding of the meaning of words. All in all the effort has been been pretty damn effective.
Jeremy: yes, we probably could give up our guns, as Britain has. Then we could kill each other with knives – same thing that’s going on in London at a great rate. The problem is people, not guns or knives."
It's not that I disdain "originalism" but that I find it ill-defined and given the long history of Supreme Court decisions, a poor measure to use. One can argue that the Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Marbury v Madison, Martin v Hunter's Lessee and many other decisions handed down by the Court were in keeping with "orginalism." Similarly, one can argue that Bush v Gore was an example of the Court going against "originalism." "Originalism" ends up, as pornography, something that is in the eye of the beholder and everyone will have different views on the topic. Constitutional scholars have fought over this matter for years.
Regarding the 2nd amendment which Russ refers to, one has to note that the Federal government already has bans on certain weapons. They have struck down statutes in some states as well as the District of Columbia that sought to regulate firearms. If we are to believe that States are empowered to pass laws in accordance with the 10th amendment, are not these Supreme Court decisions against the "originalism" concept.
I can remember back to when I took Constitutional Law in college that many of these issues were subject to hot discussion. Things have not changed in the fifty years since I studied this.
