Principles
[-snip-]
Using a document written in the 1780s and ignoring all the other laws passed and supreme court rulings (which they have the authority to do) is an artificial argument at best- Esp when discussing things which the authors could not have comprehended.
The "
old dusty outdated document" canard.
You know, I have been in any number of arguments with people who, in one breath, cited the age (and obsolescence) of the Constitution, and in the next breath cited Socrates, Plato, or Nietzsche.
I entirely reject the "old, outdated" argument.
The Constitution was written by seasoned scholars, soldiers, and businessmen who had a deep appreciation of the forgoing 5,000 years of human history and the
principles that support freedom, and the
principles that foster tyranny.
They grasped that there is "nothing new under the sun."
The same forces are at work today that were at work 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, and as far back as recorded history.
Technology doesn't change that.
Aspiring tyrants seek to obtain through subterfuge what they cannot take by force, and one of the first objectives is the removal of any impediments to their ability to effectively employ force.
Attacking a document citing its age when the real objection is its principles is a fallacy and a false attack vector.