I am working on some new stuff for this page. A recounting of our most recent Road Trip, and a short story that has been bugging me for a week now. As usual, there is no guarantee of when, or even if these things will show up, I just thought I'd let my loyal reader(s) know that stuff is in the pipeline. For today, I thought I make mention of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Thomas is what is sometimes called an Originalist, and by that people mean he defines the words and meaning of the constitution by their original, late-eighteenth century definitions. Another way to put it is he does not thing the constitution is a living document, subject to reinterpretation by each new generation. The implications of this type of thinking are far-reaching and, I think, fun to consider.

For instance, the constitution originally placed restrictions on the federal government and protected the rights of the States. After the civil war, the emphasis was placed on restricting the States power, and protecting the rights of individuals. If we revert to the old way of thinking, many of the constitutional amendments and clauses no longer apply to the States, or apply in a very different way. For example, the First Amendment's prohibition against a State religion would apply only to the federal government. Under this interpretation, Mississippi could become officially Baptist, and Utah could be officially LDS. Now, the provisions about freedom of religion would still apply, so no State could force you to attend services nor could they prohibit you from forming or attending the Church of your choice.

Another contention of Justice Thomas is that the term "commerce" (as in the "commerce clause" of the constitution, with which congress has passed legislation regarding almost every conceivable form of interstate transaction) in the 1790's related only to the physical moving of goods across state borders. Using this logic things like the FCC could be unconstitutional as they do not deal with any actual, physical commerce.

Let me close by saying that I am not a constitutional scholar, and I neither support of disagree with Justice Thomas' constitutional theories (as he is infinitely more learned in this subject than I, I am on no firm ground to question him). I merely find them fun to consider.

Actual Things I've Said That My Wife Didn't Find Funny

Me: I think I'll have butter on my baked potato.
Her: Put the butter away this time/
Me: Why should I? The butter puts itself away.
Her: No it doesn't.
Me: Yes it does. Every time I leave the butter out, I come back and it's in the fridge again.

Hmm. That was a lot funnier when it happened.