The Original Intent Argument

Started by Sci Fi Fan, November 16, 2013, 05:05:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dan

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
...it's a blatant argument from authority.  The Constitution was not a final will and testament - the nation exists for current and future generations, not to honor the wishes of our framers.  They even recognized this themselves, hence why they included an amendment process.  I don't think any of them would appreciate our taking their word as though it were divinely mandated, rather than the often inconsistent opinions of intelligent but mortal men.  People bring it up all the time, and its validity still has not been refuted, that the original Constitution condoned the institution of slavery, and didn't even ensure universal suffrage.  Hardly a perfect document.  The idea that a two century old documents could still remotely function just on its original framing is patently absurd, and our authoritative treatment of the "founders' intentions" is based on various false assumptions:

1. That the founders were a homogenous entity, rather than bickering politicians who formed political factions and even challenged one another to duels.
2.  That the founders, for all their intelligence, were so brilliant that they had anticipated modern technological, scientific and cultural developments, and that their opinions remain more sound than our own today, backed by tools such as modern scientific studies and centuries of additional historical data.
3. That the founders really believed in what you thought they did, when they were largely actually intellectuals that were considered incredibly liberal for their time, loathed banks and wanted to separate church and state.
    Side note: It amuses me that Glenn Beck dresses up as and admires Thomas Paine...a militant anti-theist who labeled all organized religions institutions designed to enslave mankind.
4. That the founders don't already have a dubious track record, from slavery to civil rights to obvious loopholes in the Constitution they failed to address.  They were brilliant men for their time, but would themselves not want to be used as authoritative sources in a society that would be virtually unrecognizable to them.



And just to note, the founders were right on a lot of things.  But what they were correct on can be independently justified with logic and evidence, with no need to point out which founder said what beyond simple citation.

The consitution made provisions for it's own modification. Yes it is a living, breathing document. But show me where it provides for modification if a few arrogant, unelected, hipper than thou judges want to play a game of intellectual twister.

If you let the bill of rights be changed because a few leftists wish it to be so, then you have anarchy. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of leftist impulses and power grabs.

I choose to be a nation of laws, but hey, that's just me. I'm silly like that.
If you believe big government is the solution then you are a liberal. If you believe big government is the problem then you are a conservative.

Dan

These leftist a-holes who try to say the intent was something completely different from what was said are intellectually dishonest people. Does anyone really think there is anything in the constitution that makes abortion a constitutionally protected right?

All those judges did was eliminate their own credibility with anyone who pays attention to the constution. Yes they are tied to a system that can create consequences that force my compliance. But that is very different from saying they have any legitimacy or moral authority it my eyes.

It's their guns and jails that keep me in line. It's not their beliefs. They are noy my leaders. They are just the people who can harm me if I do not comply.
If you believe big government is the solution then you are a liberal. If you believe big government is the problem then you are a conservative.

TboneAgain

Quote from: Dan on January 07, 2014, 05:06:23 AM
These leftist a-holes who try to say the intent was something completely different from what was said are intellectually dishonest people. Does anyone really think there is anything in the constitution that makes abortion a constitutionally protected right?

All those judges did was eliminate their own credibility with anyone who pays attention to the constution. Yes they are tied to a system that can create consequences that force my compliance. But that is very different from saying they have any legitimacy or moral authority it my eyes.

It's their guns and jails that keep me in line. It's not their beliefs. They are noy my leaders. They are just the people who can harm me if I do not comply.

Well said, Dan. Government is force, nothing more and nothing less. Any time -- actually, every single time -- anyone in the government says otherwise, that person is lying. Life isn't always a simple game, but this time, it is really just that simple.

Scroll down and enjoy the words of George Washington, who knew a thing or two about government.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

RGCheek

Quote from: Dan on January 07, 2014, 05:03:18 AM
The consitution made provisions for it's own modification. Yes it is a living, breathing document. But show me where it provides for modification if a few arrogant, unelected, hipper than thou judges want to play a game of intellectual twister.

If you let the bill of rights be changed because a few leftists wish it to be so, then you have anarchy. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of leftist impulses and power grabs.

I choose to be a nation of laws, but hey, that's just me. I'm silly like that.

How does case law fit into all this?

Dan

Quote from: RGCheek on January 07, 2014, 08:37:32 AM
How does case law fit into all this?

Judicial interpretation should not be used to expand the scope and intent of the constitution until it is unrecognizable. If we are talking about interpretation of nonconstutional law then case law is generally your guide. But a different standard should be applied to the constitution.
If you believe big government is the solution then you are a liberal. If you believe big government is the problem then you are a conservative.

daidalos

Quote from: Dan on January 07, 2014, 06:20:08 PM
Judicial interpretation should not be used to expand the scope and intent of the constitution until it is unrecognizable. If we are talking about interpretation of nonconstutional law then case law is generally your guide. But a different standard should be applied to the constitution.
The "check" against that, as provided in our Constitution is two fold. A: Justices can be impeached and removed from office by the Congress. B: If the high court rules in such a fashion as the Congress or the people disagree, the Congress can enact legislation and amendments to overturn such rulings.

Lastly, your argument illustrates precisely why there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, providing for term limits of Congressmen/women as well as SCOTUS justices.
One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Greystone

What's an interesting part of this debate on judicial review is that the constitution never even says the Supreme Court has the power to rule acts of congress or the president as unconstitutional, this was only established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and to me, the supreme court declaring that it has such a power is a dubious assertion. There is an entirely different school of thought on this issue, one that doesn't think the court even has this power they frequently exercise. Jefferson didn't believe the supreme court had this power of judicial review; he believed that if congress passed a law in opposition to the constitution that it was the duty of the electorate to be the check against this by voting out those politicians who passed such a law and that the court didn't have the power to simply strike it down.

As far as interpretation goes, I prefer Justice Scalia's method of originalism. He doesn't look to the original intent of the framers, but simply to the original meanings of the words in the text itself. I don't like the original intent method because the constitution was a compromise and you won't find authoritative conformity in thought to apply to the whole constitution. Just look at the plain meaning of the words, as they would have been understood by someone reading them at the time. Liberals often make the text say whatever they want it to say, which to me is something I find hard to differentiate from lawlessness.

supsalemgr

Quote from: Greystone on January 19, 2014, 09:56:18 AM
What's an interesting part of this debate on judicial review is that the constitution never even says the Supreme Court has the power to rule acts of congress or the president as unconstitutional, this was only established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and to me, the supreme court declaring that it has such a power is a dubious assertion. There is an entirely different school of thought on this issue, one that doesn't think the court even has this power they frequently exercise. Jefferson didn't believe the supreme court had this power of judicial review; he believed that if congress passed a law in opposition to the constitution that it was the duty of the electorate to be the check against this by voting out those politicians who passed such a law and that the court didn't have the power to simply strike it down.

As far as interpretation goes, I prefer Justice Scalia's method of originalism. He doesn't look to the original intent of the framers, but simply to the original meanings of the words in the text itself. I don't like the original intent method because the constitution was a compromise and you won't find authoritative conformity in thought to apply to the whole constitution. Just look at the plain meaning of the words, as they would have been understood by someone reading them at the time. Liberals often make the text say whatever they want it to say, which to me is something I find hard to differentiate from lawlessness.

An interesting post, especially the part about Jefferson feeling the electorate should kick out legislators who make bad law. While the electorate in Jefferson's time was not highly educated, it, for the most part, had good common sense. Fast forward to 2014 and we have a more educated electorate, but also a more ignorant electorate. Jefferson probably did not visualize that the electorate's votes could be bought with food stamps, welfare, unemployment bribes and cell phones.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

TboneAgain

Quote from: Greystone on January 19, 2014, 09:56:18 AM
What's an interesting part of this debate on judicial review is that the constitution never even says the Supreme Court has the power to rule acts of congress or the president as unconstitutional, this was only established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and to me, the supreme court declaring that it has such a power is a dubious assertion. There is an entirely different school of thought on this issue, one that doesn't think the court even has this power they frequently exercise. Jefferson didn't believe the supreme court had this power of judicial review; he believed that if congress passed a law in opposition to the constitution that it was the duty of the electorate to be the check against this by voting out those politicians who passed such a law and that the court didn't have the power to simply strike it down.

As far as interpretation goes, I prefer Justice Scalia's method of originalism. He doesn't look to the original intent of the framers, but simply to the original meanings of the words in the text itself. I don't like the original intent method because the constitution was a compromise and you won't find authoritative conformity in thought to apply to the whole constitution. Just look at the plain meaning of the words, as they would have been understood by someone reading them at the time. Liberals often make the text say whatever they want it to say, which to me is something I find hard to differentiate from lawlessness.

I'm pretty sure it's tough to see the difference because there isn't one. Lawlessness is about as good a one-word definition as you're likely to find for what the Left actually wants. They don't want "rule of Law;" too confining. They want "rule of men;" at least as long as they are the men ruling.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

LiberalIntellectual

There are many problems with original intent, not the least of which is that the world has changed radically since the time of the Founders.  The Founders would have no concept of many things we consider commonplace - an internet forum, for example.  We cannot turn the clock back to 1789 and expect conditions then to apply to situations today.  Original Intent is nice in theory, but it is inadequate to deal with the 21st century.

Solar

Quote from: LiberalIntellectual on February 11, 2014, 08:13:27 PM
There are many problems with original intent, not the least of which is that the world has changed radically since the time of the Founders.  The Founders would have no concept of many things we consider commonplace - an internet forum, for example.  We cannot turn the clock back to 1789 and expect conditions then to apply to situations today.  Original Intent is nice in theory, but it is inadequate to deal with the 21st century.
So the Bill of Rights is antiquated as well?

You people are complete idiots when it comes to the rule of law, and if you actually understood the Constitution, you'd be the ones screaming we return to it's original intent, instead of wanting to trash it for a communist manifesto.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

supsalemgr

Quote from: LiberalIntellectual on February 11, 2014, 08:13:27 PM
There are many problems with original intent, not the least of which is that the world has changed radically since the time of the Founders.  The Founders would have no concept of many things we consider commonplace - an internet forum, for example.  We cannot turn the clock back to 1789 and expect conditions then to apply to situations today.  Original Intent is nice in theory, but it is inadequate to deal with the 21st century.

By following the intent of the founding fathers we created the greatest country in the history of the world. As people started "messing" with original intent our country has gone backwards. It is called liberalism.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Solar

Quote from: supsalemgr on February 12, 2014, 07:20:40 AM
By following the intent of the founding fathers we created the greatest country in the history of the world. As people started "messing" with original intent our country has gone backwards. It is called liberalism.
LiberalIntellectual...
Isn't that like saying, smart idiot?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

LiberalIntellectual

Quote from: Solar on February 12, 2014, 04:31:42 AM
So the Bill of Rights is antiquated as well?

Of course not.  What I'm saying is that we cannot apply the Bill of Rights to 21st century issues (like internet piracy) and expect the writings of the Founders to be useful, because times have changed.

Solar

Quote from: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 08:32:12 AM
Of course not.  What I'm saying is that we cannot apply the Bill of Rights to 21st century issues (like internet piracy) and expect the writings of the Founders to be useful, because times have changed.
So freedom of speech, religious freedoms, protection from illegal search and seizure are no longer applicable?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!