The Intolerance of Tolerance

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Hm, I don't quite see how that relates, but it's an interesting point. Let's talk about that!

If we don't take into account what people think today, how do we make decisions on...for example...

Let's say in the framers time, an army of goverment workers was hired to go through and open everybody's mail at the post office, every personal letter, etc that came through. That would generally be considered a violation of the part of the constitution that protects against unreasonable searches and seasures, right? Well, what about a supercomputer searching through mass emails looking for terrorists?
To make a decision one way or the other, don't we have to take into account many things that just didn't exist in the framers time? Or am I misunderstanding?

I'm not going to get into a case by case debate with you but just this once emails are submitted through a shitload of third parties who can intercept at any point - that you'd not like them to doesn't interfere with the fact that they can... which diminshes your expectation of privacy considerably. Secondly, what is 'reasonable' under the fourth is different depending on the purpose of the search (eg - criminal investigation or nAtional security just to point out an obvious couple). Lastly, yes, we have shit loads of things to take into account that the framers could have never ever imagined. Which is why they put a mechanism in place for changing the constitution - and it ain't a guy in a black robe with a pen

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by xian

I'm not going to get into a case by case debate with you but just this once emails are submitted through a shitload of third parties who can intercept at any point - that you'd not like them to doesn't interfere with the fact that they can... which diminshes your expectation of privacy considerably. Secondly, what is 'reasonable' under the fourth is different depending on the purpose of the search (eg - criminal investigation or nAtional security just to point out an obvious couple). Lastly, yes, we have shit loads of things to take into account that the framers could have never ever imagined. Which is why they put a mechanism in place for changing the constitution - and it ain't a guy in a black robe with a pen

Well, yeah, but we can't ammend the constitution over every little thing, right? That would be the (broken) Texas constitution. The email thing was just something I pulled out of my ass, I don't even think it's a real issue. (I just wanted to avoid touching off another boring abortion or gay marriage debate) I guess what I'm trying to get at is, how "elastic" should the constitution be? Where does judicial interpretation become judicial rewriting?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Well, yeah, but we can't ammend the constitution over every little thing, right? That would be the (broken) Texas constitution. The email thing was just something I pulled out of my ass, I don't even think it's a real issue. (I just wanted to avoid touching off another boring abortion or gay marriage debate) I guess what I'm trying to get at is, how "elastic" should the constitution be? Where does judicial interpretation become judicial rewriting?

A reasonable question and the line can be reasonably debated but when the intent of the framers can be reasonably ascertained... then changing that intent through issuing a contrary opinion is too far.

Want that more concretely? Me too. But we don't always get what we want.