(US) Politics over breakfast
Feb. 18th, 2016 11:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaberettA brought up originalism this morning (very briefly: it's a legal approach to interpretation of the US constitution that views the Constitution's meaning as fixed as of the time of enactment, rising to prominence in the 1980s) as contrasted with the Living Constitution/constructionism.
It seems obvious to me that this is a theological argument at least as much as it's a secular one, in that originalist interpretations are associated with conservatives (notably Scalia) in a way analogous to Biblical literalism (a school of thought arising, ish, in the 18th century) in contrast with exegesis that treats religious texts as living documents that require reinterpretation in light of their present contexts. (I am contrasting "theological" and "secular" there deliberately, rather than "theological" and "legal": for the purposes of this post I'm taking the perspective that the Bible is a text that sets out a system of laws and precedents.)
I'm neither a theological scholar nor a legal scholar (and nor for that matter am I especially familiar with the US politicolegal system beyond the obvious osmosis) so I'm obviously handwaving quite a lot here, but I would be interested in Your Collective Thoughts on the matter, if you have them and feel like talking!
It seems obvious to me that this is a theological argument at least as much as it's a secular one, in that originalist interpretations are associated with conservatives (notably Scalia) in a way analogous to Biblical literalism (a school of thought arising, ish, in the 18th century) in contrast with exegesis that treats religious texts as living documents that require reinterpretation in light of their present contexts. (I am contrasting "theological" and "secular" there deliberately, rather than "theological" and "legal": for the purposes of this post I'm taking the perspective that the Bible is a text that sets out a system of laws and precedents.)
I'm neither a theological scholar nor a legal scholar (and nor for that matter am I especially familiar with the US politicolegal system beyond the obvious osmosis) so I'm obviously handwaving quite a lot here, but I would be interested in Your Collective Thoughts on the matter, if you have them and feel like talking!
(no subject)
Date: 2016-02-19 08:42 pm (UTC)When it comes to constitutional law, the US en masse seems to forget the principle of blind justice and try to suborn it as a partisan club to beat the other guy with. Some of the stuff that goes on around Roe vs Wade, voter registration and equal rights absolutely horrifies me.
The problem with the separation of powers, I think, is that the only way we've found to change the status quo other than a bloody Civil War is via Supreme Court ruling by nine justices appointed for life. (What was that about no monarchy, founders?) Otherwise there's so much obstructionism and filibustering and posturing that nothing gets done. Alternately, the President can issue executive orders...which can just be overturned by the next president.
It's fundamentally unsustainable and that worries me in a way I try not to think about every day so I can function. But since the whole "let's shut down the government every year while we argue about the budget" thing is just...
and don't get me started on how Congress has to approve DC's budget, so Senators and Congresspeople from across the country can ban funding for Metro or abortion *to make a point* even though everyone who actually lives in DC would like to do the Thing.
*flails*