The sad state of the US people.

[Kasz216]

akuma587 said:

Kasz216 said:

I actually bet he would agree with you as well that Guantamo bay is illegal.

Most Libretarians would.

A Libretarain would actually go with both your opinion of the 7th and the 2nd ammendment.

Libretarians believe that principles matter and doing things the right way is important because if you do something the wrong way you leave yourself open to a lot of problems.

I agree that sticking to principles, especially the bright line principles that run throughout the Constitution, is extremely important.  These are the principles that should be "shackles" that we should never lose sight of.

But some principles change, and some principles should change.  That is just how a society works, which is one of the reasons there is a lot of wiggle room in some parts of the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers were well aware that time changes a lot of things.  But we should stick to the principles that we can say there really was no question about when the Constitution was drafted based on what would have been within their contemplation at the time.

But in the 2nd amendment example it is unreasonable to construe that people's rights to own missles are protected by claiming that is what the Founding Fathers intended.  It just isn't what they intended because it is impossible for them to have intended that.  This is the kind of principle that we have to look at from a practical standpoint.

And the possession of automatic weapons is similarly something the Founding Fathers did not consider when they made the 2nd amendment.  I don't think it is unreasonable to say that there could be a way to justify the ownership of automatic weapons based on the Constitution, but is that what is best for society and can we reasonably say that the Founding Fathers had automatic weapons in mind even if they did say "arms"?

I guess I am trying to make a distinction between intention and principles, as both are pretty important when interpreting the Constitution.  And the Founding Fathers in a lot of ways did not want to hinder our growth as a society by creating a rigid document, so practicality should really come into play when discussing things in the Constitution that were not fleshed out on purpose or situations that have completely changed in a way the Founding Fathers could not have predicted since the drafting of the Constitution.

 

What happens when someone passes a law... and then an unintended consequences cause a problem?

Law makers change the law.

If you've got this problem with the consitution.  Which does include missles, automatic rifles etc.  Change the constitutions.

Until then any laws should be illegal that bar such things.

What they intended is what they meant at the time.  Not what they would think currently now.