| </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As to your point about the need for continuous reinterpretation. I would would love to see that point defended from a consistent logical basis. Give it a shot. You could be the first!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
i think you're overthinking my point. I'm simply saying that our culture is remarkably differrent than it was when the constitution was written. women can vote, blacks can vote, neither of which were considered voting citizens at the constitutions inception. Of course these were actual amendments to the document, but they also imply that we need to look at the other freedoms originally granted to "citizens," and see if they too need to apply to our current definition of citizen. Its that simple. If we don't reinterpret it in light of changes in the culture, it becomes an oppressive document, working against the cultural forces of change, so culture gets stagnant.
-B |