From this follows that the standards of people today have very little to do with what made sense when the constitution was written. Two things about this — literal intepretation of the consitution is impossible. Best path is to have a constitutional convention that is based on who we are today.
Nobody to my knowledge believes in literal interpretation of the Constitution. What the “originalists” believe in is the use of original INTENT as a guide to interpretation.
This does not change with a Constitutional Convention. The view of men such as Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, et al would still be that the Framers were unusually wise men who were uniquely given the luxury of being able to THINK about what forms of government, and the characteristics of those governments, work and do not work, back into history. Thusly, their original thoughts provide a guide for us today that we would be unwise to ignore.
The primary message they send us from the past, in my view, is the same as the message of Machiavelli — absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Constitution divides up power, between the branches of government, and between the States, so that no one state nor one branch nor one person gains too much power or control.
Unfortunately, we have walked away from that philosophy, by ignoring the the 10th since FDR, and by politicians who allow themselves to be led by the nose by their party (and President, if they have one) and vote lockstep on issues. Most of the political angst we see in this country over the last half century are caused by block partisan voting and the growth of the unitary executive’s power, which leaves the only check on a political party to be the judiciary, which now itself is starting to run a bit amok, at least at the lower levels.
As for a Constitutional Convention, any scheme which allows California to become the Marxist paradise of y’all’s dreams AND which allows TX to become the libertarian paradise of MY dreams is OK with me.
As for you being a white male christian. I never implied you were. My comments weren’t direct at you, theyu were directed at Rick Fischer.
Mr. Fischer and I are largely sympatico on political issues. It is a disservice to assume the motivations of a person without allowing them to answer questions as to those motivations.