 Welcome to the Knuckleheads of Liberty. Libertarian Corner, one of the issues that comes up constantly and from the court is, you know, the issue of originalism versus a living document. And so it essentially gives you just a little bit of background. Is the Constitution something that we should be sort of actively interpreting to the times? Or should we be treating it like a contract where the words are very precise and try to tie them to the meaning at the time that they were penned? And it's kind of one of those things. Scalia was certainly a person who everybody noted as an originalist, sort of a poster boy for originalism. But some of the more liberal justices are ones that you would much more associate with the living document. What would you like it to say? But it's kind of a tough question, though, because the knee-jerk reaction might be to say that, well, clearly a contract, you want it to mean exactly what it's supposed to mean. But there are some words in there that are like unreasonable. Unreasonable search and seizure. Yeah, okay. So it's unreasonable search and seizure. And the issue with punishment as well, which I'm calling a bite. Cruel and unusual punishment, exactly. So I mean, these are two, they're clearly open to interpretation. So what do you guys think about this? Alright, can I start? Of course, I've been going first all the time, so go, please. Okay, I'm going to use the word regulated. As in the second amendment, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, comma, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So when they said well-regulated, they were referring not to the current meaning of the word regulated, like regulation, but to the proper function. In other words, you had a well-regulated clock, for example. In other words, it told the right time. It functioned properly. So if you had a well-regulated militia that was necessary to the security of a free state, it was one that functioned well, okay? It was not regulated by the gods from on hand, the government goons, the jackbooted thugs. That's not what it meant, you moron. So here's the thing. If it's a document written the way it was written, back when it was written, it is the meaning of the words at the time. So it's an original meaning that is at stake here, okay? And to understand it, you have to understand the original meaning. All this living, breathing nonsense is like, I go to your house to play Monopoly. I get $400 when I go around Go, and you only get $200. Why? Because it's a living, breathing rules in Monopoly, and I just get to change them because I'm your guest, okay? I get $400, you get $200. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is, okay? How do you like me now, liberal, Democrat, whatever, progressive, nincompoop? Go ahead, Leon. I don't understand how the Constitution could be a living, breathing document. I really don't understand that. Because you're not a progressive nutcase. Obviously not. Tim, I'll have to take that as a compliment. You should, you should. It was meant that way. Because this is a contract between the government and the governed, and the governed is all of us, okay? And the government cannot really, nearly change the terms of the contract without going through the process that is embedded in the document as to how to change, you know, if there's something that we think need changing or need addressing. There's a process that's embedded there by our founders. And just to jump in there, Leon, that actually allows it to be a living document within the rules of the contract itself. Exactly. Right, right. It could be a living, breathing document if you use a process that's in the contract, okay? But these morons, using Tim Wood, want to tell us that some judge sitting behind his desk could just willy-nilly decide, well, you know, I don't like those words as it was written. So let me give you the words that I think that should have been there. I am saying to you, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, if we ever fully endorse this living, breathing document, fully endorse the Constitution as a living, breathing document, we are talking about the death of our republic because then anyone can change the meaning. Any judge can change the meaning of our rights. What if one judge wake up one morning and decide, well, free speech, which is in the First Amendment, does not mean what is in that document. What if somebody decides that? What are we going to say then? Then we're going to object to this living, breathing concept? This is the death of our republic. If this ever be fully, if we ever endorse this concept of a living, breathing document. Yes, I agree. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Jay. If I can say one more thing, progressives, liberals, they hate the Constitution. They absolutely hate it. Why? Because it shackles its law is about the government, is on the government, is to limit the government, to give it certain powers and certain... What's the word? The opposite of powers is... I can't think of it. You know, we're... Limitation, restrictions? Yeah, it'll come. We both got bite-nitis today. Probably do. Let's be rubbing. I don't even watch that guy ever speak. I don't know what my... I'm 70, that's it. So, of course, they want it to be living and breathing so that it can just change to their whims, you know, whenever they want to, because they hate it. And they don't want to be restricted in any way. So, there you go. That's all I wanted to say. Go ahead, Jason, you have something else. I was just going to segue here, but this does show the importance, too, though, of making sure that words are very precise when you put them into a contract. And that's why things like unreasonable and cruel and unusual are very, you know, the types of things that should be avoided. You really need to, you know, get down to the nuts and bolts of what you mean. But, you know, government often uses some very odd words in trying to talk about what they're after. Thank you for listening to the Knuckleheads of Liberty podcast.