The presention of evidence and the careful conscious unfolding of events and choices and consequences gives me understanding that I can use, both in terms of method and a sense of credible thinking that can be shared.
Separately, ...
when thinking about the implications of the perspective of originalism, it occurs to most people immediately that, had that been the conscious perspective of the larger group that constituted the framers of the Constitution, that
the Constitution would be a distinctly different document;
and, the extent to which the assumptions of the basic personal and societal vital importance of human agency and personal voluntary choice and action these framers and their contemporary political activist citizens would be different, would be assumptions much more limited in character and limited in so far as involvement in forming and maintaining governance democratically.
It is not, it seems to me, a contradiction to remind originalists of these weaknesses while also acknowledging the many assumptions in the form of political and social norms that were simply not present among them and that we rely on today, such as the norms included in formulating and inclusion of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. It should always be acknowledged that at any moment any person's 'understanding' has limits in respect of experience available and reasoned interpretation, i.e., understanding is partial and incomplete, is abstract and is the abstraction of much but not all experience and thought.
It is telling that members of the Court, e.g., Thomas and Alito, formulate decisions that seem to indicate that they, themselves, feel constrained to not think beyond past practical understandings of human capacity and of events and the character of human societies. Why consciously impose on one's self such constraint? Is it possible to ignore the productive and mutually beneficial outcomes that are brought about and improved day by day, day after day, by most people by each of the latter's own personal agency? Is it reasonable to only focus on 'ordinary weaknesses and biases' (who am I quoting, ... I forget ... maybe Ben Franklin?...), or even more significantly to allow the conventional biases toward or against specific groups of people (a tendency so well explained by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg), to constrain anyone in the novel use of human capacity of thoughtful awareness and evaluation of experience?
Do others here see this situation differently? Have we each sufficient voluntary agency -- or not-- to choose, then act, then honestly evaluate the consequences and move forward with the making of experience-tempered or lessons-tempered choices, both individually and cooperatively?
Thank you for this analysis, Ms Wehle.
The presention of evidence and the careful conscious unfolding of events and choices and consequences gives me understanding that I can use, both in terms of method and a sense of credible thinking that can be shared.
Separately, ...
when thinking about the implications of the perspective of originalism, it occurs to most people immediately that, had that been the conscious perspective of the larger group that constituted the framers of the Constitution, that
the Constitution would be a distinctly different document;
and, the extent to which the assumptions of the basic personal and societal vital importance of human agency and personal voluntary choice and action these framers and their contemporary political activist citizens would be different, would be assumptions much more limited in character and limited in so far as involvement in forming and maintaining governance democratically.
It is not, it seems to me, a contradiction to remind originalists of these weaknesses while also acknowledging the many assumptions in the form of political and social norms that were simply not present among them and that we rely on today, such as the norms included in formulating and inclusion of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. It should always be acknowledged that at any moment any person's 'understanding' has limits in respect of experience available and reasoned interpretation, i.e., understanding is partial and incomplete, is abstract and is the abstraction of much but not all experience and thought.
It is telling that members of the Court, e.g., Thomas and Alito, formulate decisions that seem to indicate that they, themselves, feel constrained to not think beyond past practical understandings of human capacity and of events and the character of human societies. Why consciously impose on one's self such constraint? Is it possible to ignore the productive and mutually beneficial outcomes that are brought about and improved day by day, day after day, by most people by each of the latter's own personal agency? Is it reasonable to only focus on 'ordinary weaknesses and biases' (who am I quoting, ... I forget ... maybe Ben Franklin?...), or even more significantly to allow the conventional biases toward or against specific groups of people (a tendency so well explained by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg), to constrain anyone in the novel use of human capacity of thoughtful awareness and evaluation of experience?
Do others here see this situation differently? Have we each sufficient voluntary agency -- or not-- to choose, then act, then honestly evaluate the consequences and move forward with the making of experience-tempered or lessons-tempered choices, both individually and cooperatively?