|
It might come as no surprise to scaeagles then that I agree with the Hamiltonian interpretation.
Ya know, when there are different interpretations of American law or bedrock philosophies that have to be applied to all the American people, I try to come down on which interpretation is the the most "American" ... and I wish more people would attempt to do that with things that effect everyone in America.
If Hamilton's opinion is that in the Constitution there "ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies,as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible to safely limit that capacity," ... I find that simply more American in nature than the limited interpretation of enummerated items clearly rooted and frankly mudstuck in the 18th Century.
When there are two reasonably valid interpreations, why focus on the unanswerable question of which is "right?" Why not instead focus on determining which interpretation confers the most benefit on We the People who have established the Constitution?
I hate to go all Godwin ... but this is the big problem I have with Right-to-Lifers. Whether you believe life starts at conception or at birth or somewhere in between, how hard is it to look around and see that at least half the people in America don't agree with you? The "right" answer for all Americans can never be arrived at, even thouth it's simple to arrive at your own "right" answer. The American thing is to err on the side of freedoms and liberties. The American thing is to acknowledge the pluralism of our society and allow for other viewpoints.
In any event, it's likely too much to ask most Americans to come down on what's more American on these unanswerable questions ... but I do hold our lawmakers and judges to that standard when unanswerable questions must nonetheless be decided.
|