I assume t.v. has The Right to Freedom of The Press, unless they are behaving in a proprietary manner. In other words, pulling the same crap as before. Disallowing Equal Time and Public Access while suppressing alternate sides of important issues. I would also consider that the press was not believed to be "cost-prohibitive" against The People's Right to spread the word, unlike broadcasting up until the development of digital cameras and YouTube. So any responsibility should be that of the broadcasters to provide equal coverage of such issues. A difference in the delivery system should not be an excuse to destroy our Rights to Equal Protection. At least not without our consent.

And I Totally Assume The Rights of The People to Freedom of Speech and Press by use of The Internet. Because Rights are Inalienable and belong to each of us. That fact has not changed since the signing of the contract in 1787.

I think The Founding Fathers never disagreed on the interpretation of the terms of the contract because those who did were about their Slaves and about their political supremacy above the rest of us. Those folks had no intention to Liberty, let alone Equality.

I don't think I did miss your point. You don't think words have fixed meaning. They evolve with the time into whatever you think they should mean at that time.

I agree the Constitution doesn't mention the internet. But I think one can compare it to the printing press, a mass communication tool in their day, which would seem to be included within the First Amendment.

The problem is perhaps that you have no method for constitutional interpretation (although I bet I could predict your opinion on most issues, so maybe you do) other than some Rawlsian idea of fairness that changes over time.

Yes. "Cruel and unusual punishment" does not mean the same thing in the 21st Century as it did in the 18th. The 14th amendment gives rights to "people" but at the time it was written, it did not include women or gays (and barely included blacks). Meanings change. Society changes.

Denying that society and meanings change because you want some sort of "right answer" is kind of naive in my mind. The Constitution is not a religious document written by gods; it's a political document written by a bunch of politicians. It should work for us; we should not be its slave.

There is no "right" interpretation of the Constitution -- only what we, as a people, decide it is.

So what is your view of the 13th Amendment? Do we just decide it means whatever we want in our time? Why do we write down laws? The Constitution is amenable. Which parts of the Constitution have fixed meaning and which do not?

You failed to answer my initial question. If a Republican wins office in 2020, why can't that person decline to enforce Obamacare by simply interpreting it in light of the majority that elected hIm or her? That is your standard of interpretation and I cannot find a reason why you would disagree (other than because you like that law and deep down you know the position, except in terms of raw political power, is ridiculous)

Words change. The Congress that passed Obamacare was 10+ years earlier. Half of them are gone. Millenials are ascendant and boomers dying. Etc.

What about double jeopardy? Suppose a person is accused of conspiracy to commit terroristic acts. Goes to trial and the State loses. Because we live in times that include ISIS and Al Qaeda, and because "Jeopardy" means a "game show" in modern times, that the State would not be in violation of the "double jeopardy" criminal procedure provisions of the Constitution if they charged that person again, presumably after tossing him in long term confinement without a trial.

I am sure you agree with all of that. Your only quibble would be the merits of the case and not the procedural issues. Right?

I did answer your question.

The Constitution means whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it means. I know that sounds cynical, but that's how it's worked for over 200 years. The exact same words get reinterpreted all the time. The Court makes a decision and then 20 years later a different Court makes the exact opposite decision. Guns were not a personal right for 200 years and then this current Court said they were.

You can not like the fact that this is what happens, but this is what happens. And it's not liberals doing this all the time -- it was the conservative justices who reinterpreted the 2nd amendment, and who decided that corporations were "people" and money was "speech". And a new Court could turn around and say "nope" and change it back.

So my answer: There are no fixed meanings, and both sides reinterpret the Constitution all the time. To hold otherwise is to ignore hundreds of years of precedent and history.

I would rather ignore hundreds of years of precedent and history than to continue to uphold any injustice, for instance, slavery. I believe slavery was preserved in the contract as a necessary evil.
We were too weak to allow abolition at the time. That move in 1787 would have threatened an insurgency and return to The Empire.
It is good that most "interpretation" is not to violate the understanding, but to provide remedy against our traditional prejudices.

California has a State Code which specifies that a law which serves in the direction of intent Shall be interpreted liberally in the same direction, and Shall be interpreted Narrowly as it opposes the direction of intent. Much of our intent is preconceived by the State's adoption of much of the James Madison draft of The U.S. Constitution before it was hacked by the founding haters.
The Madison Constitution made explicit many of the Rights that are assumed by interpretation at the Federal level.

We would also do very well to enforce the Alliance and Confederacy Clause since most of our injustices are perpetrated by such organizations who also lack standing by way of Inalienability.
By all Rights, others, including the voters, have no lawful empowerment against our Inalienable Rights. And yet by poverty (lack of access to the courts) and ignorance, The People in the First Person still let others, including our legislatures and our courts, deprive what they please.

Although an atheist, I too take a natural rights type view of the law.

Question: why is it that everything you write has odd spacing conventions?

Reinterpreted the Second Amendment? That is laughable. The framers really wrote a right into the Bill of Rights to grant the Federal Government the Power to give guns to militia members? Unlike all the other rights in the Bill that grant individuals rights against the Government, they thought it only fair to make sure to mention the right for it to give guns to militias. Not like they didn't have that power already under Article 1 and 2.

I get that you don't like The Second Amendment. That is fair but your preference is to say it means something it doesn't mean rather than using the Amendment method to remove it. I interpret what you wrote above to agree with what I say. Glad that you agree.

Jeb! would like a word with you on corrupt money winning elections. Bernie Sanders too.

You mean the line breaks? Those are a habit of emphasis, especially if, when reading it, everything seems to run together or may be misconstrued by adjacent association.

Anything else is because I am odd.

I was referring to history. Facts. Actual decisions.

The Court interpreted the 2nd amendment one way for 200 years and then another way in the past 20 years.

All you have to do is read the decision to see that, or talk to anyone who studies the Constitution.

This happens all the time. Not everyone agrees on the meaning of the Constitution. If we did, we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court now, would we?

So different people get on the Court and they have their own interpretation.

That's reality; that's fact; that's how it is. You can dislike that all you want, but that's how it works.

But if you can't interpret someone else's word however you want, what is judicial interpretation based on? Case law can't be the same as legislation, because that would mean pieces of legislation are merely proposals subject to becoming whatever a judge wants. So, how can interpretation contradict intention? And what determines the limits to interpretation? Is it based on laws only being justified if based on inalienable rights? (some divine authority or fundamental reason is seen to support it). So laws would be inferences rather than the object of the legal structure?

The Webster's Dictionary in use at the time of the signing of The Constitution defined the word "Liberty" as "Freedom from Rule". This concept of Liberty will work when tethered to the concepts of Equality and Equal Protection; that as citizens, we are all equal and that Nobody is superior by privilege or authority, be it Government or Criminal. Compare these concepts to acts of harassment or Trespass by Government or by supremacy. The law can be just as guilty of trespass as the criminal.

Just for fun. Is this man violating the law? And is he guilty?

I am not sure how many times or different ways I can say this.

The law is whatever judges say it is.

Every judge has their own opinion as to what the "original intent" of the law was.

If everyone agreed on what the "original intent" was, we wouldn't need judges.

Whenever anyone says there is only one "original intent" they always amazingly also know exactly what it is and -- even more amazingly -- it always matches what they already believed. (Sort of like religious nuts who are convinced there is only one interpretation of the Bible and it's always the same thing as their own.)

This is how it works. I know some people want the law to be like a science, where you can do an experiment or some research and know the answer, but it isn't. It's politics. It's written by politicians. (Just like the Constituton was written by politicians.) It's judged by people who are elected (and are therefore politicians) or appointed by politicians. They don't all agree, just like politicians don't agree. They get things wrong a lot. And the people who get to be judge aren't always the best or smartest lawyers.

This is how it works.

I do this for a living, you know.

No trespass and injury makes a judge a dull boy. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

So, the law is politics. Thanks for clearing that up.

I read Heller and McDonald in law shool, doubt you did, and the court also interprets statutes, regulations, and untangled Circuit splits, so I yawn at your point about "we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court now, would we?"

What was the way the court interpreted the Second Amendment over the first 200 years? I don't remember it saying or doing much at all in that area unless you mean it's absence of comments reflected its position. But please enlighten me, Mr. Lawyer.

If Donald Trump wins and appoints 5 Justices and they say reverse all First Amendment press protections, that is just a matter of interpretation, right? You would agree with them since the Constitution has no real meaning except what we say it means today.

Just like I interpret everything you write to be in agreement with whatever I say. Nothing has fixed meaning.

The reason people don't agree on "original intent" is not because there is a disagreement as to meaning (in most cases) it is because there IS agreement as to meaning and they (or you) use "living document" methodology to change it without abiding by the Amendment process.

I suspect you know the "original intent" of the Second Amendment, you don't like it, so you spend time trying to muddy the water and eventually change the meaning in current contexts.

The Constitution states that Senators serve for 6 year blocks. Back when that was drafted, as well as the 17th Amendment, atomic weapons were not around. Therefore, since there was no Internet, 6 means 7.4. Because times change. Also racism, therefore 7.4.

Sure. It was added for the states so they could have their "militias" to round up slaves. They were worried that the north would take their guns to prevent that from happening.

But of course, YOU don't like that so you spend time trying to muddy the water.

Look, law is politics. Pretending that it's Handed Down By The Gods is as arrogant and narrow-sighted as when a preacher claims that he and he alone knows exactly what the Bible means.

Whenever someone claims that we should adhere to some 18th century definition of "equality" or "freedom" like an Amish refusing to live in the real world, it's always because they want to force their own personal views on the rest of us and not feel guilty for doing so.

I, personally, prefer to live in the real world.

EDIT: Thanks for the nice debate. It spurred a good blog post for me.

http://ventrellaquest.com/2016/02/29/law-is-politics/