[XorNot]

Guess you oppose all those constitutional amendments then too?

The Bill of Rights even expressly notes that the rights enumerated do not cover all rights and cannot be expected to cover all rights, and that those rights not enumerated are not meant to somehow be lesser -

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[chrishynes]

Exactly the opposite. Amendments are the correct way to change the Constitution.

Randomly deciding, "oh, we'll just reinterpret the existing language to mean something totally different, and is cool because times have changed..." is a totally different ballgame.

That sort of thinking violates the legitimacy of our legal system at the basest level. If words in a law, or in the Constitution don't mean anything and meanings can be changed on a whim, there is no solid ground for anything.

[JoeAltmaier]

Except this is the norm. Is electronic communications protected? Freedom of the Press cover that? Who controls currency vs coin? What about bitcoin? Interpretation is going on all the time.

[chrishynes]

There's nothing wrong with interpretation, as long as that interpretation doesn't change the original intent. Obviously freedom of the press covers communications in general, already covered several types of communication originally, and would cover electronic communications and any other form of communication we invent.

If you want to change the original intent, though, that's an amendment. That's why prohibition required an amendment, for example. The court couldn't (as they disingenuously do today) just say, "well, over here the Constitution says that the feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce. So sure, prohibition is fine because commerce."

[JoeAltmaier]

That's a stretch by any interpretation. Its obvious to me that an electronic amendment is overdue. Can we come up with a test for 'amendment required'? It can't be about what's 'obvious' to someone.

[chrishynes]

And therein lies the rub. Interpretation vs. legislating from the bench is in the eye of the beholder.

Doesn't matter anymore, though -- the majority of people, whether liberal or conservative, don't really care about freedom or laws anymore, or what the Constitution actually says. They just want the government and the courts to decide their way, regardless of whether it is good jurisprudence.

[humanrebar]

Constitutional amendments are certainly constitutional.

The judicial system discovering new rights is not.

And that clause of the Constitution certainly was not used when the question of mandatory health insurance came before the court. I would actually like that policy if it were consistently applied. Instead it is applied when it is the means to meet the desired ends. And that means we are a nation ruled by men, not by laws.