Posted by
The Proud Liberal on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:49:25 AM
From whence comes the legitimacy of one generation binding another? Levin says: "(The Constitution) connects one generation to the next by restraining the present generation from society experimentation and government excess." But it doesn't follow that the present generation must accept what the founders wanted or intended. Conservatives are big on liberty, but they deny the present generation the liberty to accept, reject, modify or pick and choose what we want to follow in the Constitution. If the people are sovereign why isn't the present generation sovereign instead of the Founder's generation being sovereign. If government is based on consent of the governed how can Levin justify not recognizing the consent of the present generation.
Levin simply demonstrates a fundamental conservative error, that of legitimacy. The Constitution should be interpreted in an Originalist way only if the present generation formally legitimizes that it should be.
Levin also engages in some pseudo anthropology, viz: ""One of the fundamental ways man adapts is to acquire and possess property. It is how he makes his home, find or grows food,makes clothing, and generally improves his life. Private property is not an artificial construct. It is endemic to human nature and survival."
Actually, man's activities were originally tribal or communistic. Where did Levin get that drivel?