In my wildest dreams, I can't imagine a woman ever wakes up and says to herself "you know, it might be fun to get pregnant and then have an abortion". That doesn't happen. The public shaming (and honestly, what I consider terrorism) that occurs outside of abortion clinics doesn't help with the cultural stigma. I'd have even the faintest hint of sympathy for the arguments of MOST anti-abortion activists (and especially those who identify as Republicans) if they showed even the slightest interest in policies that can actually REDUCE abortions dramatically instead of seeking to eliminate the procedure altogether. But they don't, and haven't for decades. The official solution on the right is a.) don't have sex and b.) if you do get pregnant, your punishment for that behavior is 18 years of raising a child whether you want to or not. The push for abstinence only education among the same interest groups who are anti-choice likely cause MORE abortions to take place.
Language may not have changed to the point of incomprehensibility, but social & technological change do place intense pressure on the interpretation of constitutions. Many historians have argued that social changes over the past few hundred years are greater than at any other similar period. So we see the slow turn of legal precedent to support the needs of society at a particular time...
It's worth noting that I have had different experiences of constitutions compared to other forumites perhaps. To give some examples... In the UK there is an occasional call to formulate some sort of text that would formalise individual rights but for now things remain fuzzy- notwithstanding the experiment of importing EU law. In Nepal the formulation of a constitution was an intensely contested and controversial process, it was rewritten in 2015. Japan is continually reinterpreting a constitution formulated while under occupation that is rather difficult to amend- article 9 has been twisted up like a pretzel. America's complex reverence for its founders is an interesting case of national myth-making (in a positive sense), but there are obviously many possible relations to the text of a constitution. Sometimes a prison, sometimes a shelter, sometimes a ladder...
I prefer to interpret passages in law or constitution as the original author envisioned, and any changes requires a replacing of the passage with clear explanation of the change.
I am aware of the school of thought where the practice is to try and re-interpret the same passage (therefore avoid the need for amendment of the constitution because thats alot harder) where enough ambiguity exists in the passage that you can do that, which is the province of the Supreme Court (they interpret, but do not amend).
I'm honestly not a fan of such a work-around that really seems like the Supreme Court wanting to be able to amend the Constitution, without amending the Constitution and introduces needless confusion.
We can interpret what the original author intended but things have changed in 200 years. Cellphones, tanks, disposable inkpens, the telephone, computers, cars are a few of the advances. The original authors had no concepts of today's automatic weapons or the USA have a standing army so their thoughts on a lot of subjects are hardly relevant because those technologies were inconceivable to the founding fathers.
If they had those things during their day, then their thoughts on the matter are relevant otherwise people are projecting that they would not change their mind if they were aware of such things. But even then, the world was a really different place.
My background is literary so I am very sceptical about attempts to interpret texts / works of art based on importing authorial intention- the death of the author and all that. (Though these days with patches & editing it's a little harder to apply that stance to media which are in a state of constant revision & fan modification. After all I practically remake BG for myself every time I choose mods for it....) At some point the text has to go its own way...
Exactly. How very arrogant to think the way you have interpreted a text is what the author intended. That has no basis except an assumption of your own excellence. No, each person interprets text within their own frame of reference. There is no absolute interpretation except maybe in very clear, structured and logical cases. But the US constitution is not one of those cases.
Whenever you interpret someones speech or writings, you conclude that that is what they meant.
the proper way to discuss interpretations, is to discuss it in a rationale manner by weighing evidence and using logic.
Not hurl insults and condemn others for having an interpretation in the first place.
The absurdity would be if we start angrily calling each other arrogant by virtue of simply replying to each other since that act alone means we each have concluded the intent of the other persons writing.
I'll put it in another way.
Apologize for every reply you ever made in this thread, because it is 'arrogant' according to your logic, to even have a conclusion as to the other person (the authors) intent by interpreting their writing, which enabled you to reply in the first place.
My background is literary so I am very sceptical about attempts to interpret texts / works of art based on importing authorial intention- the death of the author and all that.
the death of an author has no bearing on interpreting text, you can be as skeptical as you want, but your doing what your skeptical about every time you reply in this thread.
Apologize for every reply you ever made in this thread, because it is 'arrogant' according to your logic, to even have a conclusion as to the other person (the authors) intent by interpreting their writing, which enabled you to reply in the first place.
It's not arrogant to have a conclusion, it's arrogant to say yours is the only possible (or correct) conclusion. Please read what I said.
To clarify... the death of the author is a common literary term- referring to an essay by the critic Barthes. I should have put it in quotation marks .
It's not arrogant to have a conclusion, it's arrogant to say yours is the only possible conclusion. Please read what I said.
Which no one has been, If people have a disagreement in interpretation then the proper avenue is to look at evidence, use logic and rationale which people have been by explaining historical context.
To clarify... the death of the author is a common literary term- referring to an essay by the critic Barthes. I should have put it in quotation marks .
Philosophy bereft of practicality is just meaningless thinking that is not validated.
historical context can never be separated from text, authors intent or their context can never be separated from their writings.
Their writings may be written well enough that it can be interpreted accurately without needing secondary evidence, but that doesn't invalidate secondary sources anyway.
And it would be absurd taking to a logical conclusion, What if the Author happened to write material to explicitly explain another work he created?
To reject that would be so absurd it would be silly.
The Trump administration has started touting numbers showing job growth, when Trump himself said during the election that the numbers were fake. When his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was asked about the reversal, Spicer said
"I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote him very clearly: 'They may have been phony in the past, but it's very real now.'"
I've never before heard it stated so blatantly, even proudly. The administration is willing to change its opinion about certain data even when the data has the same numbers and comes from the same source.
At some point, you surrender all pretense of basing your beliefs on facts.
The Trump administration has started touting numbers showing job growth, when Trump himself said during the election that the numbers were fake. When his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was asked about the reversal, Spicer said
"I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote him very clearly: 'They may have been phony in the past, but it's very real now.'"
I've never before heard it stated so blatantly, even proudly. The administration is willing to change its opinion about certain data even when the data has the same numbers and comes from the same source.
At some point, you surrender all pretense of basing your beliefs on facts.
Job growth is important, all of a sudden, after all we're on our 77 consecutive month of growth literally.
It's not arrogant to have a conclusion, it's arrogant to say yours is the only possible conclusion. Please read what I said.
Which no one has been, If people have a disagreement in interpretation then the proper avenue is to look at evidence, use logic and rationale which people have been by explaining historical context.
To clarify... the death of the author is a common literary term- referring to an essay by the critic Barthes. I should have put it in quotation marks .
Philosophy bereft of practicality is just meaningless thinking that is not validated.
historical context can never be separated from text, authors intent or their context can never be separated from their writings.
Their writings may be written well enough that it can be interpreted accurately without needing secondary evidence, but that doesn't invalidate secondary sources anyway.
And it would be absurd taking to a logical conclusion, What if the Author happened to write material to explicitly explain another work he created?
To reject that would be so absurd it would be silly.
Thanks for reading it anyway.
I write a little, and I have found that other people's interpretations of my texts can be at least as valuable as my own. That doesn't strike me as absurd, a text which only the author can give a final interpretation to is one which no-one else is reading. Complexity & ambiguity go along with diversity & richness. If we rely upon authorial interpretation on the other hand then dead authors are better than live ones as they can't change their minds as much... not that anyone is very likely to dig up incriminating statements by the authors of the American constitution that would overturn current legal norms of course!
I sense however that your use of concepts like practical, common sense, and the universality of particular historical texts mean that we just have underlying disagreements about Truth construction & validity which are unlikely to be resolved easily... and if premises are different then it is possible to build coherent but contrary systems. (Less charitably I think it was Jeremy Bentham who referred to the French Constitution as "nonsense on stilts" because he disagreed with its premises!)
@Nonnahswriter I'm not saying all pro choice supporters are like that. I have seen many reasonable people in this forum myself. But I have (probably) never met any of you in person. What I'm trying to say is that (sadly) all of my personal experience of people claiming to be pro choice, has been varying degrees of what I mentioned in my above post.
*edit* This actually makes me wonder what stances (political and moral) have been completely discarded simply because people's interaction with them was exclusively hateful fringe supporters. I personally, have re-evaluated so many political stances that I previously dismissed out of hand, simply because the people here are actually capable of articulating their stance without devolving into hate.
@ThacoBell The problem with politics, religion, sports and basically everything that may have more than one point of view is fanaticism. Every time your first contact with a different view on whatever it may be is with a fanatic you'll give up even trying to understand the other point of view or listening to the arguments of the more reasonable people who defend that position.
Or as I wrote in my status a few weeks back... "This is the internet. If you disagree with me you're wrong'
The Trump administration has started touting numbers showing job growth, when Trump himself said during the election that the numbers were fake. When his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was asked about the reversal, Spicer said
"I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote him very clearly: 'They may have been phony in the past, but it's very real now.'"
I've never before heard it stated so blatantly, even proudly. The administration is willing to change its opinion about certain data even when the data has the same numbers and comes from the same source.
At some point, you surrender all pretense of basing your beliefs on facts.
The Trump administration has started touting numbers showing job growth, when Trump himself said during the election that the numbers were fake. When his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was asked about the reversal, Spicer said
"I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote him very clearly: 'They may have been phony in the past, but it's very real now.'"
I've never before heard it stated so blatantly, even proudly. The administration is willing to change its opinion about certain data even when the data has the same numbers and comes from the same source.
At some point, you surrender all pretense of basing your beliefs on facts.
There is video of Trump claiming the unemployment rate during the Obama Administration was as high as 42%. 42% unemployment. That would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.
I write a little, and I have found that other people's interpretations of my texts can be at least as valuable as my own. That doesn't strike me as absurd, a text which only the author can give a final interpretation to is one which no-one else is reading. Complexity & ambiguity go along with diversity & richness. If we rely upon authorial interpretation on the other hand then dead authors are better than live ones as they can't change their minds as much... not that anyone is very likely to dig up incriminating statements by the authors of the American constitution that would overturn current legal norms of course!
I sense however that your use of concepts like practical, common sense, and the universality of particular historical texts mean that we just have underlying disagreements about Truth construction & validity which are unlikely to be resolved easily... and if premises are different then it is possible to build coherent but contrary systems. (Less charitably I think it was Jeremy Bentham who referred to the French Constitution as "nonsense on stilts" because he disagreed with its premises!)
There is a mistake here.
Your perspective is about Fictional Literary Works, ie. Stories
Death of an Author" was written mainly around idiot philosophers thinking about literary works that were fiction, in other words stories.
Fictional stories, where English teachers love 'metaphors' and love the idea of never knowing or asking the author the interpretation of what they wrote because they derive so much enjoyment from asking their student what some vague ambiguous passage meant, and the wonders of their students all making up different stuff.
Is completely irrelevant to the Constitution, just as it would be silly to apply such a perspective to scientific journals, academic papers or business reports, No CEO would ever tolerate a practice where a statistical graph showing plummeting sales to be 'interpreted' to mean incredible growth.
Your approach is about preferring entertainment over Truth, and even wishing to disregard Truth because it is too binary, it is not an approach about seeking truth.
I am a new bomb-diffusal agent that has to diffuse a bomb, I have the official written standard practice of diffusing said bomb in my hand. My mentor who is too old to do such precise work with his hands is next to me to guide me. He wishes to explain to me the steps in the written piece on how to diffuse said bomb, since i find it not very clear. Do i reject his explanations because i read 'Death of an Author' ? No, Nor would anyone.
I have said it before, I dont know if it was here, but every time Trump says a blatent lie, people need to call him out on it and demand he backs it up with proof or have him apologize and retract his statement and they need to do it every time. Trump will resort to attacking that person's or organization's character where slander and or libel can come into play.
But hopefully it isnt one voice but a chorus of voices that he and his followers can't just shrug away.
People will believe what they want to hear, and that is what Trump is doing with his base. The truth should be louder than his lies.
I have said it before, I dont know if it was here, but every time Trump says a blatent lie, people need to call him out on it and demand he backs it up with proof or have him apologize and retract his statement and they need to do it every time. Trump will resort to attacking that person's or organization's character where slander and or libel can come into play.
But hopefully it isnt one voice but a chorus of voices that he and his followers can't just shrug away.
People will believe what they want to hear, and that is what Trump is doing with his base. The truth should be louder than his lies.
Trump does not lie like a normal politician, or even a normal human being. He lies about nearly everything, and his lies are designed to be so outrageous as to totally shift the meaning of reality among a segment of the population. Goebbels figured this strategy out 80 years ago.
"Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping"
Spicer is saying the President was saying what he heard in the news.
And it's your fault News Media for reporting that the Obama was wiretapping Trump after Trump said that Obama was wiretapping him. You reported a lie, so can't you see that it's your fault? Don't you know that was a lie? Silly News that was a lie that Donald Trump heard on the news from you guys reporting what he said himself.
I write a little, and I have found that other people's interpretations of my texts can be at least as valuable as my own. That doesn't strike me as absurd, a text which only the author can give a final interpretation to is one which no-one else is reading. Complexity & ambiguity go along with diversity & richness. If we rely upon authorial interpretation on the other hand then dead authors are better than live ones as they can't change their minds as much... not that anyone is very likely to dig up incriminating statements by the authors of the American constitution that would overturn current legal norms of course!
I sense however that your use of concepts like practical, common sense, and the universality of particular historical texts mean that we just have underlying disagreements about Truth construction & validity which are unlikely to be resolved easily... and if premises are different then it is possible to build coherent but contrary systems. (Less charitably I think it was Jeremy Bentham who referred to the French Constitution as "nonsense on stilts" because he disagreed with its premises!)
There is a mistake here.
Your perspective is about Fictional Literary Works, ie. Stories
Death of an Author" was written mainly around idiot philosophers thinking about literary works that were fiction, in other words stories.
Fictional stories, where English teachers love 'metaphors' and love the idea of never knowing or asking the author the interpretation of what they wrote because they derive so much enjoyment from asking their student what some vague ambiguous passage meant, and the wonders of their students all making up different stuff.
Is completely irrelevant to the Constitution, just as it would be silly to apply such a perspective to scientific journals, academic papers or business reports, No CEO would ever tolerate a practice where a statistical graph showing plummeting sales to be 'interpreted' to mean incredible growth.
Your approach is about preferring entertainment over Truth, and even wishing to disregard Truth because it is too binary, it is not an approach about seeking truth.
I am a new bomb-diffusal agent that has to diffuse a bomb, I have the official written standard practice of diffusing said bomb in my hand. My mentor who is too old to do such precise work with his hands is next to me to guide me. He wishes to explain to me the steps in the written piece on how to diffuse said bomb, since i find it not very clear. Do i reject his explanations because i read 'Death of an Author' ? No, Nor would anyone.
Ah, I'm afraid that your interpretation of this concept is also one which I do not find convincing...
Let's take a different tack to nail down our differences.... If we talk about TRUTH in my view it is not something which pre-exists in the world, waiting for us to discover it. We construct truths through our interpretations of the world, through our interactions with it and other actors, which we then attempt to inform each other of through communication systems such as language. As far as I can tell you appear to incline toward a more positivist stance that Truths pre-exist in the world and that we can discover them. Would that be fair?
If we approach TRUTH in these different ways then we will obviously have differences about how we interpret texts like constitutions, and even how we should interpret them. My approach seems frivolous to you, because you have argued that through the analysis of primary & secondary sources of authorial intention we can arrive at universally applicable principles. Others in this thread have argued that this text is historically situated, and that its application in modern times should be mediated (or even rewritten) according to the needs of present day society. You have argued against this and for the principle that widespread gun ownership remains as a check on tyranny. Different premises lead to different conclusions...
Ah, I'm afraid that your interpretation of this concept is also one which I do not find convincing...
Let's take a different tack to nail down our differences.... If we talk about TRUTH in my view it is not something which pre-exists in the world, waiting for us to discover it. We construct truths through our interpretations of the world, through our interactions with it and other actors, which we then attempt to inform each other of through communication systems such as language. As far as I can tell you appear to incline toward a more positivist stance that Truths pre-exist in the world and that we can discover them. Would that be fair?
You contradict yourself.
Your approach is one of entertainment and not Truth, where you enjoy the practice of differing interpretations without validation because to you it 'feels' enriching.
Complexity & ambiguity go along with diversity & richness.
This is a common practice among entertainment literature, ie fiction.
However even if you argue that we should re-interpret thing's for modern practical usage, you are mandating modern practicality to restrict the interpretation of a passage so that it is useful.
Which contradicts your own position in the first place.
Others in this thread have argued that this text is historically situated, and that its application in modern times should be mediated (or even rewritten) according to the needs of present day society. You have argued against this and for the principle that widespread gun ownership remains as a check on tyranny. Different premises lead to different conclusions...
I prefer to interpret passages in law or constitution as the original author envisioned, and any changes requires a replacing of the passage with clear explanation of the change.
Virtually everyone in the thread was discussing authors intent and historical context, really only you have been arguing for an interpretation separate from author or historical context because you want leeway to argue we can re-interpret a statement however we want.
The sheer amount of silly problems this causes can easily be avoided if we Simply replace a passage when we want instead of re-interpreting it outside its original intent.
There is no point engaging in confusing and pointless re-interpretation when we can skip all the hassle by writing a new Amendment if we want a new meaning.
CBO estimates 24 million people will lose their health insurance under the GOP plan. It's impossible to even fathom or properly gauge how much suffering this bill would cause. It will literally KILL thousands upon thousands of people.
By the way, the current head of the CBO was appointed by a Republican-controlled House.
CBO has a very bad track record in making estimations of these health care systems, in fact I'd say most organizations got Obamacare wrong.
CBO estimated there'd be 20 million who purchased Obamacare and then factored this in their calculations for Obamacare.
The figure was actually around 11 million, which you know would throw off every forecast they ever made for Obamacare.
I don't believe they were doing this intentionally, but the attempts to estimate Obamacare by organizations have been so wildly off from reality, that's its apparent they cannot simulate reality well enough to forecast.
America cannot sustain any universal health care with its massive debt anyway, so any system is doomed to failure.
If people only used the firearms when the 2nd amendment was first established rather than modern guns it wouldn't need an issue. Can't see many people going on a shooting rampage with a musket.
CBO has a very bad track record in making estimations of these health care systems, in fact I'd say most organizations got Obamacare wrong.
CBO estimated there'd be 20 million who purchased Obamacare and then factored this in their calculations for Obamacare.
The figure was actually around 11 million, which you know would throw off every forecast they ever made for Obamacare.
I don't believe they were doing this intentionally, but the attempts to estimate Obamacare by organizations have been so wildly off from reality, that's its apparent they cannot simulate reality well enough to forecast.
America cannot sustain any universal health care with its massive debt anyway, so any system is doomed to failure.
The CBO was actually pretty damn accurate. What was impossible was for them to take into the account the Supreme Court allowing States to refuse to expand Medicaid and Marco Rubio's poison pill in later legislation that cut off the payments the insurance companies to make-up for taking people with pre-existing conditions. The first is the reason the number of insured wasn't as high as predicted, the later is the central reason why there were rate hikes in the later years.
Comments
I am aware of the school of thought where the practice is to try and re-interpret the same passage (therefore avoid the need for amendment of the constitution because thats alot harder) where enough ambiguity exists in the passage that you can do that, which is the province of the Supreme Court (they interpret, but do not amend).
I'm honestly not a fan of such a work-around that really seems like the Supreme Court wanting to be able to amend the Constitution, without amending the Constitution and introduces needless confusion.
If they had those things during their day, then their thoughts on the matter are relevant otherwise people are projecting that they would not change their mind if they were aware of such things. But even then, the world was a really different place.
They did indeed envision a national standing army, in fact that was heatedly debated which directly impacted the 2nd amendment itself.
Also much of the Constitution is based on concepts rather then hard technology.
Like Freedom of Speech.
the proper way to discuss interpretations, is to discuss it in a rationale manner by weighing evidence and using logic.
Not hurl insults and condemn others for having an interpretation in the first place.
The absurdity would be if we start angrily calling each other arrogant by virtue of simply replying to each other since that act alone means we each have concluded the intent of the other persons writing.
I'll put it in another way.
Apologize for every reply you ever made in this thread, because it is 'arrogant' according to your logic, to even have a conclusion as to the other person (the authors) intent by interpreting their writing, which enabled you to reply in the first place. the death of an author has no bearing on interpreting text, you can be as skeptical as you want, but your doing what your skeptical about every time you reply in this thread.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
Philosophy bereft of practicality is just meaningless thinking that is not validated.
historical context can never be separated from text, authors intent or their context can never be separated from their writings.
Their writings may be written well enough that it can be interpreted accurately without needing secondary evidence, but that doesn't invalidate secondary sources anyway.
And it would be absurd taking to a logical conclusion, What if the Author happened to write material to explicitly explain another work he created?
To reject that would be so absurd it would be silly.
At some point, you surrender all pretense of basing your beliefs on facts.
Spicer and Trump would say it's all due to Trump.
I write a little, and I have found that other people's interpretations of my texts can be at least as valuable as my own. That doesn't strike me as absurd, a text which only the author can give a final interpretation to is one which no-one else is reading. Complexity & ambiguity go along with diversity & richness. If we rely upon authorial interpretation on the other hand then dead authors are better than live ones as they can't change their minds as much... not that anyone is very likely to dig up incriminating statements by the authors of the American constitution that would overturn current legal norms of course!
I sense however that your use of concepts like practical, common sense, and the universality of particular historical texts mean that we just have underlying disagreements about Truth construction & validity which are unlikely to be resolved easily... and if premises are different then it is possible to build coherent but contrary systems. (Less charitably I think it was Jeremy Bentham who referred to the French Constitution as "nonsense on stilts" because he disagreed with its premises!)
*edit* This actually makes me wonder what stances (political and moral) have been completely discarded simply because people's interaction with them was exclusively hateful fringe supporters. I personally, have re-evaluated so many political stances that I previously dismissed out of hand, simply because the people here are actually capable of articulating their stance without devolving into hate.
Or as I wrote in my status a few weeks back... "This is the internet. If you disagree with me you're wrong'
Your perspective is about Fictional Literary Works, ie. Stories
Death of an Author" was written mainly around idiot philosophers thinking about literary works that were fiction, in other words stories.
Fictional stories, where English teachers love 'metaphors' and love the idea of never knowing or asking the author the interpretation of what they wrote because they derive so much enjoyment from asking their student what some vague ambiguous passage meant, and the wonders of their students all making up different stuff.
Is completely irrelevant to the Constitution, just as it would be silly to apply such a perspective to scientific journals, academic papers or business reports, No CEO would ever tolerate a practice where a statistical graph showing plummeting sales to be 'interpreted' to mean incredible growth.
Your approach is about preferring entertainment over Truth, and even wishing to disregard Truth because it is too binary, it is not an approach about seeking truth.
I am a new bomb-diffusal agent that has to diffuse a bomb, I have the official written standard practice of diffusing said bomb in my hand.
My mentor who is too old to do such precise work with his hands is next to me to guide me.
He wishes to explain to me the steps in the written piece on how to diffuse said bomb, since i find it not very clear.
Do i reject his explanations because i read 'Death of an Author' ? No, Nor would anyone.
But hopefully it isnt one voice but a chorus of voices that he and his followers can't just shrug away.
People will believe what they want to hear, and that is what Trump is doing with his base. The truth should be louder than his lies.
Spicer is saying the President was saying what he heard in the news.
And it's your fault News Media for reporting that the Obama was wiretapping Trump after Trump said that Obama was wiretapping him. You reported a lie, so can't you see that it's your fault? Don't you know that was a lie? Silly News that was a lie that Donald Trump heard on the news from you guys reporting what he said himself.
Let's take a different tack to nail down our differences.... If we talk about TRUTH in my view it is not something which pre-exists in the world, waiting for us to discover it. We construct truths through our interpretations of the world, through our interactions with it and other actors, which we then attempt to inform each other of through communication systems such as language. As far as I can tell you appear to incline toward a more positivist stance that Truths pre-exist in the world and that we can discover them. Would that be fair?
If we approach TRUTH in these different ways then we will obviously have differences about how we interpret texts like constitutions, and even how we should interpret them. My approach seems frivolous to you, because you have argued that through the analysis of primary & secondary sources of authorial intention we can arrive at universally applicable principles. Others in this thread have argued that this text is historically situated, and that its application in modern times should be mediated (or even rewritten) according to the needs of present day society. You have argued against this and for the principle that widespread gun ownership remains as a check on tyranny. Different premises lead to different conclusions...
Your approach is one of entertainment and not Truth, where you enjoy the practice of differing interpretations without validation because to you it 'feels' enriching. This is a common practice among entertainment literature, ie fiction.
However even if you argue that we should re-interpret thing's for modern practical usage, you are mandating modern practicality to restrict the interpretation of a passage so that it is useful.
Which contradicts your own position in the first place. False Virtually everyone in the thread was discussing authors intent and historical context, really only you have been arguing for an interpretation separate from author or historical context because you want leeway to argue we can re-interpret a statement however we want.
The sheer amount of silly problems this causes can easily be avoided if we Simply replace a passage when we want instead of re-interpreting it outside its original intent.
There is no point engaging in confusing and pointless re-interpretation when we can skip all the hassle by writing a new Amendment if we want a new meaning.
Our arguments can stand as they are--they neither need to be repeated, nor do they need to be dissected.
By the way, the current head of the CBO was appointed by a Republican-controlled House.
CBO estimated there'd be 20 million who purchased Obamacare and then factored this in their calculations for Obamacare.
The figure was actually around 11 million, which you know would throw off every forecast they ever made for Obamacare.
I don't believe they were doing this intentionally, but the attempts to estimate Obamacare by organizations have been so wildly off from reality, that's its apparent they cannot simulate reality well enough to forecast.
America cannot sustain any universal health care with its massive debt anyway, so any system is doomed to failure.
It's a stupid outdated concept.
This comes to mind
Logic!