|
Justice Scalia has put forth what I think is a very compelling argument against the way some people look at the constitution. What he objects to is people who interpret the constitution to say what they think it should mean. A perfectly good example, in my mind, is people who try to morph the 2nd amendment into something completely contrary to its clear and common meaning.
One of the main functions of the constitution is to limit what the government can do to the people.
If the constitution means whatever someone thinks it ought to mean, then the people have no protection.
If it doesn't mean what it ought to mean, then the route for change is an amendment, not a twisted interpretation.
|