Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,209
- 245
From the OP:
13. Why not an amendment if they are important to our nation?
a. Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which Marbury v. Madison uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.
b. Marshall wrote that the principles of the Constitution are deemed fundamental and permanent and, except for formal amendment, unchangeable.
See Marbury v. Madison.
Unchangeable:
changeless, constant, determinate, established, set, settled, stable, steadfast, steady, unaltered, unchanging, unvarying; immovable, unmovable
Unchangeable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
As Marshall wrote in said in same opinion:
"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it."
It need hardly be said "long and well established" meant longer than 12 years. And so it is obvious why he deferred to the precedent of the Common Law
Unchangeable outside of the amendment process.
You are, as usual, arguing against a strawman. Jurists used the same method during the late 20th Century that they used during the early 19th century.