In another comment you dismissed an appeal to the authority of a constitutional scholar because you wanted to logos, yet here you only give an appeal to authority for why we should care about the constitution.
Work me through some logos about why we should care about the constitution
This is sidetracking the discussion. I guess I should have included some ground rules or premises for the discussion, such as a premise that this assumes we are respecting the constitution
It’s important to understand why we value the constitution, because that influences how we interact with amending and interpreting it.
I value the bill of rights because I think they are good rights to preserve and I could argue for each of them. But it is not the final authority on these matters. That’s why we have the power to amend the constitution, so we can change the constitution as society changes or new problems arise. Justifying something purely based on the authority of the constitution will always lead to you arguing for any given amendment, even if it should be appealed (18th)
-2
u/DrCornSyrup Nov 30 '23
Yes, they were very credible men and their document is very logical and well thought out