[–] mamwad 6 points 14 points (+20|-6) ago 

I never understood how people expect society to remain fundamentally unchanged by technological progress.


[–] toats 7 points 4 points (+11|-7) ago 

Or social progress. In the 1920s in America a dress 9 inches off the ground was scandalous. Dancing without a gap was indecent. Smoking, drinking, or wearing makeup were simply unacceptable for women. Jazz was to be the end of civilization and morality.

Culture changes and will continue to change.


[–] Alexwo1 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

He is clearly talking about constitutional issues dumbass- Like 2nd amendment rights. When the court saw the Chicago issue about their gun ban, gun rights won 5-4.


[–] Agitprop 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago 

Dancing without a gap

Gotta save room for Jesus. Especially if there's gin and jazz involved.


[–] whynotanon1 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I don't think that was what he was arguing. You can apply the ideals of the past to the present. Example, no right to search or seizure without a warrant. You can apply this to your phone, the data inside. We have law makers right now claiming that encryption and devices that default to "locked" should be legislated away so police can find the terrorists easier. It's insanity.


[–] yell0mell0 ago 

Luckily, the founding fathers had a plan for this. Constitutional amendments. Sadly, the last real amendment was in 1971 (I'm not counting the one discussing congressional salaries). Instead of going by this very rational amendment system, the court has taken upon itself to re interpret simple language. I should also add that over time, IQ tends to rise by anywhere from 1-3 points for decade (flynn effect), so the original text is very very simple language. I'll use the second amendment for example.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Read the text. Pretty simple.Especially if we assume the average IQ of Americans in the late 1700s was in the 70s. People should be able to bear arms. No laws can infringe it. Arms at the time were not what they are today. By this strict definition, why shouldn't I be able to go to Wal Mart and buy an inter continental nuclear missile? Is that not an arm?

You might ask why I leave out the militia and security part. If we're talking citizen militias and security, that's even more reason for the people that make up these citizens to have the same level of arms as foreign militaries.

I think we can all agree, Wal mart should not carry ICBMs. Hence, we can all mobilize and pass an amendment clarifying the old law in modern terms. Or, we can keep passing vague laws that go against the well definedoriginal amendment and use case after case of various court proceedings to slowly erode at a now stupid and currently applied second amendment. Good in theory, but rule of law loses out. Which makes it so various states have various different laws and we have 50 different hands (states) doing 50 different things, with no hands talking to each other. And since today the question isn't, should we pass an amendment that replaces legal ICBMs with something rational, but is instead, various less important questions such as concealed carry, length of background checks, selling of WW2 era rifles, whether handguns should be legal, etc., there is not that public mass to enact change.

I completely agree, as the founders did, that change is important. But by legislating from the bench, slowly over time, we lose that public mass needed to enact real change. Instead we get this vagueness and nothing except the most obvious things get done by the court. Better to let the people decide. That was Scalia's intentions (most of the time, see his stuff on interestate commerce, Raich vs. Gonzalez, to see where he detracts from them).