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.
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.
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.