But the law says, the President SHALL provide.
The flaw, error, compromise, original sin, whatever you want to call it, in the constitution that resulted in the civil war was overridden in the 1860s/70s. It’s gone. It’s not part of the law any longer. That’s how the amendment process is supposed to work. There is no reason to think that, because we had a civil war, other foundational concepts like separation of powers, enumerated powers, bicameralism, etc. are flawed. There just isn’t any link there.
And even if there were, even if the original sin of slavery infected all of our institutions, that would support a political argument to amend the the constitution to fix what was wrong (or get rid of it entirely) not a jurisprudential argument to interpret the bad things away. And, once that new constitution is enacted, it should be interpreted according to its original meaning until it is overridden by another one. Until then, however, this document is our constitution and should be interpreted as such. Any other view puts the will—not the judgment, but the will—of 5 lawyers as the meaning of the constitution, and not the constitution itself, which is what the states ratified.
Also, it’s original “meaning.” Not, as you say, original “intent.”
[h=1]Supreme Court rules that workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender[/h]
https://www.axios.com/supreme-court...vii-20ca6b21-a662-4111-bebd-9be2c4dbd6ea.html
6-3. Gorsuch authored the opinion.
"They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment," Kavanaugh wrote.
pretty huge and unexpected.
The flaw, error, compromise, original sin, whatever you want to call it, in the constitution that resulted in the civil war was overridden in the 1860s/70s. It’s gone. It’s not part of the law any longer. That’s how the amendment process is supposed to work. There is no reason to think that, because we had a civil war, other foundational concepts like separation of powers, enumerated powers, bicameralism, etc. are flawed. There just isn’t any link there.
And even if there were, even if the original sin of slavery infected all of our institutions, that would support a political argument to amend the the constitution to fix what was wrong (or get rid of it entirely) not a jurisprudential argument to interpret the bad things away. And, once that new constitution is enacted, it should be interpreted according to its original meaning until it is overridden by another one. Until then, however, this document is our constitution and should be interpreted as such. Any other view puts the will—not the judgment, but the will—of 5 lawyers as the meaning of the constitution, and not the constitution itself, which is what the states ratified.
Also, it’s original “meaning.” Not, as you say, original “intent.”
Junebug do you have any thoughts on the LGBTQ case yesterday?