TexasCHLforum.com

The first ten amendments to our Constitution were ratified 224 years ago, and, depending on the mind of the debater, we still quote both sides of an argument which existed at that time. We conveniently take our choice of which side of that argument we will quote today as we argue about what that Constitution means over two centuries later.

The more significant national debate is whether what something meant, to either a Federalist or Anti-Federalist, take your pick, is what it means today. That is, is our Constitution frozen in time, or does it take account of changed culture, conditions, mores, and such?

This question is the overriding question, and the answer to this question arguably determines all the other questions about which we use quotations from the long dead and buried. In fact, the answer to that question determines whether or not the arguments made by the founders are even relevant to the issues we have before us today.

I am not taking a position in this debate, I simply point this out, so that we keep our eye on the ball, and realize that in quoting the founders we display our answer to that overriding question, and perhaps display our ignoring the real question, which has not been at all settled. This question is still alive and well in the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States. To ignore this fundamental question can result in a meaningless debate, with the debaters talking over each other's heads.

Jim

From the Houston Chronicle, this morning.

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2015/08/ ... d-be-easy/