You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
4

[–] Lamprophonia 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

To play devil's advocate, the founding fathers did understand that it actually would eventually become obsolete (or at least parts of it would at different times), so it's not so blasphemous to point out if a part of the constitution is irrelevant. That is what the whole amendment thing is all about. The constitution is not a perfect holy document.

0
4

[–] smokeu 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Except. It hasn't really become outdated. We still have the same issues they had except with bigger guns and faster quills.

0
2

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

Of course, I'm not suggesting on a whole that it's no good, just that it is a living document. It's disconcerting when I hear/read people refer to it as if it's some omnipotent and omniscient universal holy writ, and I'm in a cheeky mood so I wanted to play devil's advocate to someone on the interbuts.

0
0

[–] Balrogic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Basic liberties don't become obsolete, that's why the founding fathers said we'd need to refresh the tree of liberty with blood. In order to do away with the tyrants telling us our basic liberties are obsolete.

0
0

[–] Lamprophonia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

No, but the definition of those basic liberties and the context can change over time. For two examples, guns and the internet. Having the right to bear arms might, by some, to be considered a basic liberty (though I don't, for the sake of argument lets just say it is), but it's not such a simple thing when we take into account the kind of guns that exist today, how easily and readily accessible they are, how poor our mental health care is in this country and how it relates to guns, how poor and outdated communication is between those selling the guns and those who enforce gun restrictions, etc etc... Privacy is a basic liberty, which was a simple concept before the internet. There were rules and laws in place to protect you, but also to protect the rights journalists so that they can take a picture in public and not be in violation of your right to privacy. With the internet now, it complicates things exponentially. Anyone can 'be' anywhere in the world, and they expect to do so anonymously. There are certainly issues of privacy at stake here, and the conversation around them is complex.

Then there are situations where someone's basic liberty might infringe on that of another. What then? Which takes precedence? I consider the right to marry a basic liberty that belongs even to same sex couples. If I were gay and went to a courthouse with my would-be husband, and the clerk is a devout christian, she/he feels like their basic liberty is being trampled. When they deny my licence, I feel MINE is being trampled.

They don't become obsolete, but it's not so simple. The laws AROUND those liberties, intended to clarify these kinds of issues, can and do become obsolete.