The problem was with judges that do this Strict Constructionalism interpretation of the Constitution and see it as an unbending instrument that can only be interpreted in an 18th century definition which is such a crock that it's not worth bothering with. In the 18th century we didn't have magazine-fed firearms, much less rapid-fire weapons, we didn't have television, safe abortificants, automobiles, antibiotics, rockets, etc. They would pick and choose later rulings to suit their needs. The interpretation has to be more flexible and grow as the country and technology grows. And keep the effing religious bigots out of it! Not that religion has anything to do with this particular case.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2023-12-20 08:26 pm (UTC)The problem was with judges that do this Strict Constructionalism interpretation of the Constitution and see it as an unbending instrument that can only be interpreted in an 18th century definition which is such a crock that it's not worth bothering with. In the 18th century we didn't have magazine-fed firearms, much less rapid-fire weapons, we didn't have television, safe abortificants, automobiles, antibiotics, rockets, etc. They would pick and choose later rulings to suit their needs. The interpretation has to be more flexible and grow as the country and technology grows. And keep the effing religious bigots out of it! Not that religion has anything to do with this particular case.