If you take the argument as shallow as possible sure. But the more rigorous argument is: the enormous and egregious blind spots of the people who created our founding documents should encourage us to revise and reinterpret their work as our knowledge changes/grows.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The 2nd amendment and the 3/5 compromise are completely different kinds of "laws". Compromise had to do with the political and social climate of the specific time it was written. 2nd was written based upon acquired knowledge and wisdom of general human nature over time.
Eh, yes I understand the distinction you’re making, but the assumption is that humans are not perfect thinking machines and that our nominally “universal” thinking is nevertheless affected by our history and culture.
-
-
The fact that we aren't perfect thinking machines is the point. To combat that we must use the knowledge of human action over accumulated time to make more sound decisions instead of making decisions based only on the current and novel incarnation of the world.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.