USSC/U.S. Constitution Question
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
I don’t think so...if I understand what you are asking.
Which is why I am a textualist/originalist.
Oh, I agree. But, if it IS living, I don’t see how those who propose such can expect it to only go in one direction.
if that direction is from bad to good, why would you want it to go in reverse?
If that direction is from good to bad, why would you want it to go in the same direction?
Is there a unanimous or near unanimous acclaimation in all regards that all is “good”?
If it IS “living” it’s meaning is subject to the whims and expectations of whatever party happens to be in power at a particular point in time long enough to actually affect the direction....so, I agree.
So if a 'living' US Constitution's 14th amendment was interpreted to no longer have birthright citizenship, I'm sure the left would quickly become originalists or strict constructionists.
And many on the right would be completely okay with the Constitution living and breathing for at least a little while.
Or they'd just think that the correct original interpretation was finally instituted.
Question for the history buffs: Were Native Americans considered US citizens during the early days of the country?
Not that I know of, that’s why we had to have the Indian Citizenship Act. They felt the 14th amendment didn’t adequately cover the Native peoples.
Similar threads
