Rikurzhen
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 6,145
- 1,292
- 185
Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?
That's two different questions. Often the two sides are in the SAME state. Your solution does nothing to stop that. What you advocate is the balkanization of America. If we're to be one country, we need a common framework, not 50. One problem comes when people insist on a concept that I believe never existed, i.e. "original intent". It's a statistical and logical impossibility that all the framers had the same intent. The Constitution should be regarded as a living document that's read in view of the times we live in, NOT the views of 18th century gentry. The Canadians have this concept as a fundamental part of their constitutional law called the Living Tree Doctrine.
Living tree doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Re: Living Tree. Of course progressives favor this because they favor having a Constitution unmoored from principles.
The Canadian formulation illustrates how deranged this notion is. Their Supreme Court wrote that notion into their legal culture - the citizens never had a say. Then future judges claim it is a bedrock principle of Canadian Constitutional jurisprudence. Hooey.
The way to keep a Constitution current is to amend it. This way the people always have a voice. The living tree approach gives far, far too much power to an unelected group of people to radically change the MOST fundamental governing principles which bind us all into one compact.
In Canada's case the problem of detached judiciary is even worse that what we face here in that their SC Justices are not subject to hearings at all, their appointed behind closed doors and with input from the Canadian Bar Association. Smoke-filled back rooms combined with judges having the power to alter a Constitution just on a whim and being free from being held accountable is an awful example to hold up to emulate.
To your other issue - people of differing ideologies being colocated in the same state. This is fairly easy to solve given a long enough period of time to implement a solution - provide incentives for relocation. A Big Sort of sorts. Twenty, thirty, or forty years from start to finish. The rate of relocation should accelerate as the political imbalance grows, meaning that the incentive really only need be available to start the ball rolling.
We'll all be happier with the outcome. Liberals can have their dreamt of Nanny State and normal people can be left alone.