Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Oct 2002 04:40:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
927 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > Jefferson
>
> Y'know, let's get away from Jefferson. If we are going to discuss
> legislative intent in the Constitution we can refer to the Federalist Papers
> and the many debates that were had state by state. Some of the quotes I
> provided last time were from those debates and precisely on point in
> discussing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It's really not quite the tea
> leaf reading I think you are trying to make it out to be. But anyway...
I've mentioned before, and I'm happy to reiterate here, that you've done
vastly more reading on the subject than I, and I am therefore given to accept
much of what you interpret the 2nd amendment to say. But if the issue as
cut-and-dried as some here would have it (and I likewise feel that much of the
basic meaning is generally apparent), then how can it be so hotly debated after
all this time? Obviously the meaning is not clear to everyone, or at any rate
*different* meanings are clear to different people. And it is equally clear
that very learned people have, for centuries, understood the text with wildly
different interpretations.
I'm not going to go much further with this, since I'm aware that I tend to
become somewhat heated in my arguments on this subject.
> > At some point the
> > language of the Constitution will be as irrelevant to the current common
> > lexicon as the language of the Magna Carta is to us. Then what?
>
> Actually, I don't find Magna Carta that irrelevant.
Not the document, but the language. The text was penned nearly eight
centuries ago, and it's a rare person today who can read the English language
of the time. Of course, the text wasn't written in English, but that merely
proves my point further: the language is obscure to most modern readers, who
must rely on translation, ie: re-interpretation of the original text. In time,
the evolution of modern English into its decendents will obscure the text of
the Constitution in much the same way. The fact that words such as "militia"
and "arms" are already disputed is evidence of this.
Does anyone have a pointer to an online version of the original Latin? I can
only find translations and scanned images of the document, which are devilishly
hard to read. I'd love to see a transcript in Latin.
> As to "then what?"
>
> As you see -- increasing entropy.
By "entropy" do you mean loss of information? I don't agree; the information
is changing, and why should it do otherwise? Do you instead mean "disorder?"
Maybe so, but that can hardly be blamed merely on the evolving nature of
language.
At any rate it's very akin to people who claim that language is in some way
"degrading" from its older, purer form, as though language is a static object
that can only remain good by remaining unchanged. If the text cannot be
adapted to modern circumstances, the text should be revised or, if necessary,
abandoned. Jefferson himself recognized that slavish devotion to the wisdom of
one's predecessors is futility, and it may be moreso when done in the name of
preserving their intent.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Y'know, let's get away from Jefferson. If we are going to discuss legislative intent in the Constitution we can refer to the Federalist Papers and the many debates that were had state by state. Some of the quotes I provided last time were from (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
