Is the swingman retiring?

[Au165]

(03-12-2018, 03:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's beyond ridiculous but anyway, they set up a framework, and being forward sighted people, they realized their framework would need to be altered from time to time, so they put in the amendment process.  Now do you think they put in the amendment process with the idea that nobody would ever change anything?  Of course not.  So their intent was that it would be changed.  So amendments are part of original intent.  But they didn't make it an easy path, and I refer you back to your example.  

Okay, so now we are getting somewhere. As was said way back a long time ago, the process of creating amendments was in fact original intent in that is was to be a tool to allow it to evolve. The idea that every amendment ever created there in after follows the original intent of the constitution by virtue of being an amendment is not valid. That is why the paradox I keep mentioning matters. 

The "amendment to kill off amendments" in my example would follow the process they put in there intentionally making it original intent. Do you think they intended to provide an avenue to dissolve the whole basis of their fluid document? If so, then your contradicting your first statement that they intended for an amendment process to exist. If not then you are saying that this amendment would be counter intuitive to the amendment process itself making it outside the scope of their original intent. You're trying to take a very existential approach to original intent but when applied to the paradox (which is more litmus test than anything) I have laid out it requires you to abandon a stance and make assumptions to what they actually intended to happen. This is what real judges have to do when trying to apply original intent, and is kind of a long road back to where this whole thing started haha.

I'll go out on a limb and say the never originally intended to create an avenue to dissolve the ability to amend the constitution. With that said, I would hold that any future amendment to do so would be outside the original intent of the constitution and therefor would not be upheld. See this is what judges have to do when it comes to constitutional questions.