Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

However, that's not their job. The supreme Court's job is to make a decision based on the laws set on the books. They can't say, "Well, this version of the law would be better, so we'll go with that, but rather "Thus is what he law says".

We need to educate Congress. Better yet, we need educated people in Congress.




I would argue that that is in practice their job, especially given the amount of ambiguity, both unavoidable and superfluous, in the legislation-as-written. I actually have a very strong dislike for Scalia because I think that his legal 'originalist' philosophy is pretty much like biblical 'literalism' - it's an interpretation that is (a) convenient to him and (b) denies the validity of all other interpretations in an underhanded way.

-----


I find originalism to be the only reasonable way to interpret the document. If the constitution doesn't say what you want it to say, then change it. Once you start changing the meaning of the words you defeat the purpose of having a written constitution.

-----


Don't look now, but language, culture, and technology all change. Change right out from under the most carefully-written of legislation, in fact. Adapting to the now is what I think is the "only reasonable way" to come at the document - and has the advantage of admitting that it's an interpretation, instead of attempting to sneakily de-legitimatize all other interpretations.

But you go ahead and ask James Madison what he thinks about LulzSec.

-----


>Don't look now, but language, culture, and technology all change. Change right out from under the most carefully-written of legislation, in fact.

Yes, and so what? There's a huge gulf between legislation, which is meant to be crafted for the needs of the day and can be easily modified, and a constitution, which is a blueprint for how the government functions. Human nature hasn't changed in the last 300 years. Not one bit.

>Adapting to the now is what I think is the "only reasonable way" to come at the document - and has the advantage of admitting that it's an interpretation, instead of attempting to sneakily de-legitimatize all other interpretations.

The other interpretations are illegitimate - there's nothing sneaky about it. They're nothing more than cruft added by people who didn't have the votes to actually change the document. "Adapting to the now" is precisely the purpose of legislation and also the reason the constitution places boundaries on that legislation.

-----


Don't look now, but language, culture, and technology all change. Change right out from under the most carefully-written of legislation, in fact.

In some cases, perhaps. But where copyright, patents, or trademarks are concerned, the US Constitution is quite clear what their effect must be: congress may pass & enforce these laws "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and nothing more. In my opinion, the succinctness and simplicity of the Copyright Clause is almost timeless.

-----




Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: