independence

Winning the Millennial Vote Superhero Style!

/ warriorwoman91 / Leave a comment
Attribution: Gage Skidmore

Attribution: Gage Skidmore

One day I’ll make the trip to Comic Con and cosplay as Margaret Thatcher. I’ll set up my own booth and sell tea from Two if By Tea and pocket constitutions. I’m sure I’ll be escorted out in no time, but not before I’ve turned a few heads in the conservative direction. Seriously why don’t more conservatives get involved in pop culture activities? We’re always eight years behind in technology (hello, social media!) and turn up our noses at potentially fun activities like Comic Con because they’re “not serious politics” or some such nonsense. This is how you influence millennials folks–meet them where they are. It’s made ridiculously easy, and only a stuffy old Republican could make the process so complicated.

I want to thank Lisa De Pasquale for writing the stellar article that inspired this response (and for using my favorite comic book villain in the title). Far too often the aged and the aloof complain about the lack of Millennial support of the Republican Party or the conservative cause, yet refuse to take the necessary and often simple steps in order to attract their attention.

Why the Constitution is NOT a Living Document

/ warriorwoman91 / 1 Comment

One of the more popular contemporary interpretations of the Constitution is the notion that it is a living document, or that its meaning changes over time. Indeed, it is easy to think that a document that is more than 200 years old might by now become at least a little outdated, or even irrelevant. However, my contention is that the values and principles embodied in the Constitution are just as relevant today as they were when the founders first created it. With this in mind, the Constitution should be interpreted not as a living document, but as close to the original intent that the Founders had in mind.

The most important reason why the Constitution should not be interpreted as a living document is that it opens the door for all other kinds of ideas to be read into its meaning. This is a major flaw with those who adhere to a nonoriginal approach to interpreting the Constitution; of all of the approaches it is the, “most vulnerable to the charge of illegitimacy,” (May, Ides, 2013, p. 39). Who is to say what parts of the Constitution are outdated and which parts are not? Without a baseline of original meaning, the consistency of rulings is put in danger—one judge may read new meaning into a phrase in the Constitution for one reason, another may read something completely different into that same phrase for other reasons. An original intent approach seeks to preserve the ideals that the Constitution was designed to uphold, rather than risk its perversion with a living document approach.

One of the problems that our textbook claims is associated with an originalist approach to the Constitution is that it causes the document to be unable to address the new and contemporary issues that did not exist at the time of its creation. This argument cites the different types of speech—radio, T.V., Internet—that did not exist in the 1700s that under a strict and specific version of originalism could be rendered unprotected under the 1st Amendment (May, Ides, 2013, p. 38). This approach, however, is actually a form of textualism rather than originalism, taking only the strict meaning of the words of the Constitution—which actually could rule out even some forms of speech available in the 1700s—and disregarding the principle of free speech that the Founders originally intended to uphold.

References

May, C. N. Idea, A. (2013) Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.