If numbers do not change meaning over time, then why must words?
Of course, one counter-argument is that although the meaning of numbers remain fixed, words do not have clear meanings. However, who argues that the Electoral College, Art. II, §1, cl.2 is unconstitutional in today's time. It is argued to be undemocratic when it leads to the election of a President who received 500,000 less votes than the loser. But no one argues that the Electoral College is unconstitutional. It is clearly articled in the text, after all. And yet we say that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", Amend. XIV, §1 creates substantive rights. How can this be? The words clearly indicate that the State may deprive us of life, liberty, or property, if it provides due process of law.
Why must some portions of the text be read literally while others must not?
A blog devoted to law, politics, philosophy, & life. Nothing in this blog is to be construed as legal advice.
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2004
(138)
- ► 05/02 - 05/09 (1)
- ► 04/18 - 04/25 (2)
- ► 04/11 - 04/18 (2)
- ► 04/04 - 04/11 (4)
-
▼
03/28 - 04/04
(8)
- If numbers do not change meaning over time, then w...
- The right to privacy The pro-abortion forces thin...
- Race, One-hundred & twenty-nine years later. In s...
- CrimLaw Since I have been getting some high quali...
- Leggo my ‘ego I have been reading with much laugh...
- A new blog This new blog, Crime & Federalism, loo...
- Excepting their way around the Fourth Amendment… ...
- The Fourth Amendment has been re-written "The rig...
- ► 03/21 - 03/28 (6)
- ► 03/14 - 03/21 (5)
- ► 02/29 - 03/07 (7)
- ► 02/22 - 02/29 (7)
- ► 02/15 - 02/22 (22)
- ► 02/08 - 02/15 (21)
- ► 02/01 - 02/08 (17)
- ► 01/25 - 02/01 (23)
- ► 01/18 - 01/25 (5)
- ► 01/11 - 01/18 (1)
- ► 01/04 - 01/11 (7)
-
►
2003
(14)
- ► 12/28 - 01/04 (6)
- ► 12/21 - 12/28 (8)