Replies

'If you can't defend your argument on a practical basis or a common sense basis and can ONLY point to your interpretations of words in an old document then you're in a weak position.'

Actually it's you who's trying to amend the constitution through the interpretation of language. The ideals set forth in the constitution were summed up only in thoise words and left to the judciary to decide which situations fit into those concepts. Since then everythings turned on it's ear and now the judiciary decides what the words should mean and what they think it ought to apply to.

Nice move calling the Constitution an 'old document' in order to dismiss it. You sure you're at the right site?

I said it's an old document, because, it is. My point was it may not apply or cover situations the founders didn't predict. Certainly a technology-related amendment like one related to weapons would be the first to become potentially obsolete.

I'm saying by definition we need to stick to the words of the constitution, or amend those words. But I need more than that to convince me something is right. I need to see practicality, common sense, and results. Because of the very fact that it can be amended that should always be what we go on as the basis for our argument. You can certainly use the constitution to bolster your argument when the principles still apply.

And as far as free speech and the modern mass media, the fundamental principles of free speech still apply, such as that when all the ideas are out there, the best of them will rise to the top. It's not that everyone didn't have access to some form of media back then. The written word had no less ability to spread and disseminate widely than electronic media.