1207
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
1207 points (90.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
5408 readers
2595 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
- !whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !best_of_mastodon@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well the founders wanted us to adjust the Constitution over time to meet the needs of the current generation.
But the current crop of Supreme Court Justices in the States(Originalists?) would not interpret it that way but treat the Constitution only as valid as it is originally written, and in essence, deified its text as perfect and immutable, which is the problem here.
Well I always figured the logical trump card (pardon the pun) would be why did they include the ability to amend the Constitution if it wasn't meant to be done.
No, they'd say if you want it to change, you should change it, not rely on some extralegal function of SCOTUS to reinterpret it every few years.
Really? Then why do they insist on an unconstitutional ability to hand down precedents that everyone has to follow as they see fit? It's not really one of the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court to make decisions in legal cases that define or refine our laws. That would mean everything like Dred Scott v Sanford wouldn't exist in how our laws function.