What's the correct way to interpret the Constitution and

How will the Constitution be interpreted when english is a dead language?

Really assesses your asparagus doesn't it?

>>2402385
>Do you read it, like any other historical text, and attempt to discern what the words on the paper meant at the time? or do you read it like a child making up what the words mean to suit your personal taste as you go along?
I mean, I totally agree with your pov but why start a thread with such a loaded question? It would've been less faggoty if you just posted your opinion in a less passive agressive way.

>>2402420
damn.... really makes me think..... i guess all those latin texts (corpus juris civilis) and latin legal phrases (mens rea, compos mentis, per legem terrae, ab initio, in pari delicto, fiat justitia ruat caelum) are undecipherable

>>2402385
esoterically with jewish kabbalah
it reveals that israel is the eternal ally of the US and that americans must aid gods chosen at all times or there will be dire consequences

>>2402529
Kekist Numerology > Jewish Kabbalah

>>2402385

But OP, the constitution was expressly written so as to legally allow and expressly provide an avenue whereby future generations might just make it up as they went along. And these real subsequent changes have obviated much of the language of the original document, which obviation the original document expressly invited and made possible.

Originalism: BTFO, once and for all.

>>2402385
>What's the correct way to interpret the Constitution and why?
Whichever way the majority of the nation agrees on.

>>2402555
That's utter nonsense. The amendment process exists but was purposely created to only be used with an overwhelming consensus, not for a judge to legislate as they please, much to the chagrin of half of the country. The mileage that scumbag lawyers and judges have gotten out of the commerce clause is disgusting desu.

>>2402555
Nice trips
>expressly written 2 legally allow/expressly provide avenue 2 just make up

I'm curious for a citation of such very express legal method of not only altering but fabricating the meaning of the constitution

>>2402385
>Do you read it, like any other historical text, and attempt to discern what the words on the paper meant at the time?

It's not just a "historical text." It's a set of laws. What was intended and what it actually says are not the same thing. And like all laws it requires interpretation to apply to novel circumstances.

>>2403795
>i want these laws
>but only when they create outcomes i like

so.... this.... is ..... the.... power..... of..... cognitive..... dissonance...........