Though I am not a big fan of The View, I thought that this short clip would help instigate a good discussion on a couple of interesting issues.
As part of John McCain's appearance on the daytime talk show, the Senator was asked to comment on his view of the Church/State debate, in particular some of the perceived differences he and Sarah Palin have on the issue. In addition, McCain was questioned about his opinion of the ever-controversial Roe v. Wade decision. Here is the video of the interview:
As we all know, the doctrine of "Original Intent" has become extremely popular in a number of circles. The idea of returning to a "pure" understanding of our Constitution, as our founders understood it, invokes powerful feelings of patriotism and nostalgia. However, how much of an "Original Intent" interpretation of the Constitution do we really want?
As Whoopi Goldberg points out in this clip, a STRICT interpretation of the Constitution, as our founding fathers saw it, would have to include -- among other things -- a return to slavery. Now, it would be completely foolish for us to believe that the supporters of "Original Intent" want to bring back slavery. With that said, the question we are forced to ask is, "What kind of ORIGINAL INTENT are we talking about?"
All of us realize that returning to a STRICT and LITERAL interpretation of the Constitution is completely ridiculous and impossible. For example, strict adherence to the Constitution would require us to eliminate the Air Force and the Marines from our national defense, since the Constitution calls for providing for the common defense by means of an Army and Navy. And of course, very few Americans -- if any -- would be in favor of eliminating the Air Force, Marines, etc.
I realize that I am essentially knit picking here, but I do think that this is an issue worth exploring. Exactly what does the "Original Intent" doctrine mean? What role -- if any -- does religion play in understanding this doctrine? Can we even call it "Original Intent" after sifting away the undesirable and obsolete laws set down by our founding fathers?
In addition to these questions, I do not want to ignore the other issue mentioned in this video, that being the never-ending church/state argument. I guess its ironic that this video mentions the "In God We Trust" issue, which is something Jon Rowe has brought up in a recent post below.
Anyway, your thoughts...