Yo, SCOTUS “originalists!” I’ve got a FF* message for you

In pursuing this inquiry [urging ratification of the new Constitution], we must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. 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 safely to limit that capacity. [My bolding]

–Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34 (1788)

It’s a strange experience reading The Federalist Papers. So many paragraphs make me blink at what I’ve just seen because they seem to refer to something I just read in the (2024) New York Times, or heard on MSNBC.

Such as the excerpt above, as our contemporary news must mention the silly cop-out of the majority of SCOTUS re “originalism.” Which tacitly incorporates the bizarro (and, worse, intellectually lazy — no, dumb) notion that the Constitution must be applied exactly as laid out in the late 1700’s.  Apparently, the religion infecting SCOTUS justices insists all fundamental documents must be carved in stone, like the myth of the Ten Commandments, rather than being living documents which must be changed and amended to “look forward to remote futurity,” rather than a “calculation of existing exigencies,” i.e., frozen in the moment they were written.

And what’s going on in Texas nowadays, re the border? Well, there are so many Federalist Papers that could be addressed directly to the Texas governor and the other MAGA governors who are toying with the idea that individual states, not the Union, have the right to defend their own borders…Geez.

Take a look at John Jay’s Fed 2 (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force And Influence), Fed 3 (Same Subject), Fed 4 (Same Subject), Fed 5 (Same Subject), and Alexander Hamilton’s Fed 6 (Concerning Dangers From Dissensions Between The States), Fed 7 (Same Subject), Fed 8 (The Consequences of Hostilities Between The States), Fed 9 (The Union As A Safeguard Against Domestic Faction And Insurrection), and Fed 10 (Same Subject).

OK, that’s enough of my showing off that (a) I’m reading the Federalist Papers and (b) believe I understand them.

*Founding Fathers. What did you think I meant?

This entry was posted in "Woke" Chronicles, Government, Judiciary, Politics, The Facts of Life, The god problem and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.