Cruel Intentions
To say that implementing laws that address contemporary issues are an affront or incongruous with the intentions of our founding fathers as expressed in the US Constitution is silly at the least and logically incoherent babble at worst. A mind can have intention, minds—as in minds which each had their own intentions regarding the founding of our nation—cannot. To accept an interpretation of our constitution that sees the founding fathers as being of one mind (and how can one have a mind of many?) is to invite all sorts of contradictions. Rather, a more appropriate and logical view is to see the work of the founding fathers as a compromise of intentions of which the document (i.e. the Constitution) is the result, and is, furthermore, a conclusion born out of the discourse stemming from many intentions.
If we are to understand the ‘intentions’ of the founding fathers, we must understand not the intent of the document, for that much is clear in the text, but rather the intentions of each founding father and the compromises that resulted from the sort of philosophic and political discourse that was the norm of their day amongst such elites.
Follow @artempleton Subscribe via RSS.
