Skip to main content

View Diary: Con Law Professor Op-Ed: Let's Give Up on the Constitution (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I guess I don't understand the point of that, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Publius2008, ballerina X

    though.  "There is disagreement, ergo the process should be scrapped."  Seems like a very odd argument to me.  It's like saying that because scientists disagree on some points that the scientific method is meaningless.  At first blush, it reads like epistemic nihilism, and wrong to boot.

    •  Re: Originalism vs. interpretation, I doubt he as (0+ / 0-)

      a law professor is actually calling for both or either side to be scrapped. Just that heavily leaning on one or the other is fairly flawed. Interpretation is what makes the strongest argument for leaving the current processes for amending the Constitution as they are. My dad used to be very proud of talking how the Constitution is a living document. But I think it has proven to be less alive than we thought.

      •  I guess I don't understand what his point is. (0+ / 0-)

        "There are lot of incorrect decisions, ergo......"  Well, ergo what?  What's his point here?  Not a rhetorical question; I genuinely don't understand what purpose this point serves in his larger argument.

        •  I agree it could be more clear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster

          so I risk reading my own views into it, but I think this says it:

          If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.
          Since you see a surfeit of discussion on the matter, I don't think you see this call for reconsideration in the same light I do, though.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site