Yeah, God forbid our ruling document should actually pertain to anything in the century in which we currently live.
Well, good thing, because of the cunts who you vote for, and their gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics, you’ll likely be happy.
Who wouldn’t prefer a dead and fossilized Constitution, how better to meet the demands of a changing world but with rigid intransigence?
The law is what the law is. If it is no longer relevant, we change it.
Should Davis-Bacon just sort of be reinterpreted in light of modern times? How about the Civil Rights Act? That act is like, really old and stuff, it should be reinterpreted to make it more relevant to the modern age.
The “originalists” on the Supreme Court had no problem gutting the Voting Rights Act. I guess it’s only original if you agree with it.
How’s the saying go? “Conservatives don’t even like changing their underwear.”
That’s why we can amendment it. It’s been done 27 times.
We can, and have, amended the Constitution. I prefer a Constitution that lives, sure, by virtue of amendment by the voters, as opposed to unelected judges.
Yes. And throughout the 200+ years of its history, the federal courts have also reinterpreted parts of it as new situations have arisen that the framers had no clue would ever happen. Unless you somehow believe that the framers were psychic, this would seem to be necessary. Or do you simply deny that judicial review is legitimate at all?
That’s not the Constitution, though, which was the basis of my comment.
The VRA was only constitutional under certain conditions which were known when it passed. SCOTUS did not invent some new criteria. It was never supposed to be eternal for states to surrender their sovereignty when it came to managing their elections. It was a temporary measure to deal with a temporary problem.
Judicial review of laws is certainly appropriate – and legitimate.
Judicial invention of substantively new Constituional doctrine is not.
The framers were not psychic. They knew that the constitution would need to be modified, and they included the means to do it.
If an issue is unaddressed, or it’s unclear how the law applies to it, then sure, the courts should figure it out. Relying on the Constitution as written, not as they would like it to be.
Judicial review is essential, otherwise congress could just pass any law it wanted.
You’re off in crazy land here. Many of the liberal contributors to this thread, including me, have expressed quite clearly that they like the idea of voter ID, IF it’s done in a slow and careful enough method to alleviate our concerns about disparate impact.
All other things being equal, I certainly prefer there to be no voter fraud. I just don’t think that, in the actual world we live in, that’s a very big deal.
There are plenty of things that are in theory totally constitutional, and also totally unobjectionable or even positive, which become dangerous if they’re implemented abruptly.
Sometimes circumstances outside the constitution change, requiring interpretation.
What is “unusual” in “Cruel and Unusual Punishment?” That can change. Do you really want an Alabama-style constitution with every concept spelled out in detail? It makes more sense to allow the courts to determine what “unusual” means today, and whether it has changed since the 1780’s.
Should smart-phones be considered secure against search? Do you really want a constitutional amendment to specify this level of detail?
choke
Sure, temporary. Totally no problems whatsoever in that direction today. Just ignore the (Republican, which I’m sure is completely coincidental, since Democrats are the real racists) legislators in the affected states who immediately after that ruling put measures into play to choke off African-American/minority voting. Nothing to see here!
And again I stumble and treat adaher like he’s real people. :smack: When will I learn?
And I have agreed that a wise approach is to require at least one election cycle between the passage of the law and the implementation of it. Not only does that ensure time to create and make available the requisite IDs, it also allows the electorate to reject the legislature that has approved the scheme before the scheme takes effect.
perhaps if the government hadn’t abused this power by denying a North Carolina town the right to make their elections non-partisan…
Perhaps if you actually told us what the hell you were talking about, we could more readily know precisely how full of beans you are. Save some time that way.
So, once more with feeling: da fuq?