Conservative Political Forum

General Category => The Constitution => Topic started by: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 05:05:40 PM

Title: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: kopema on November 16, 2013, 09:41:37 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
...it's a blatant argument from authority.

That's not what that means.  And your diatribe just gets dumber from there.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:48:57 AM
Quote from: kopema on November 16, 2013, 09:41:37 PM
That's not what that means. 

It most certainly is what it means.  If you agree with specific arguments from specific founding fathers at specific times in their lives, perhaps you could just defend the points on their actual merit without trying to name drop famous dead old men.  And even if you do not personally fall for this fallacy, your conservative politicians certainly do.  Again and again.  All the fucking time. 
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: kopema on November 17, 2013, 09:29:21 AM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:48:57 AM
It most certainly is what it means.  If you agree with specific arguments from specific founding fathers at specific times in their lives, perhaps you could just defend the points on their actual merit without trying to name drop famous dead old men.  And even if you do not personally fall for this fallacy, your conservative politicians certainly do.  Again and again.  All the fucking time.

Read the Federalist Papers.  If you disagree with anything written there, it's not because THEY were logic-impaired Neanderthals.

Believe it or not, your fundamental argument  actually is valid within its own context.  If we assume that the term "argument from authority" means something like what you're fuzzily trying to imply that it does, then the people who say "the Constitution only made sense because it was written by people who were born before me" are indeed precisely as stupid as your claim that the Constitution is invalid because it was written by people who were born before you.

So... congratulations, I guess.  You successfully argued a straw man to a draw this time.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: kopema on November 17, 2013, 09:29:21 AM
Read the Federalist Papers.  If you disagree with anything written there, it's not because THEY were logic-impaired Neanderthals.

There you go with it again; suggesting that the founding fathers were infallible entities whose word still stands without modification after centuries of the most significant societal advancements in human history.

Of course, if you were actually educated on the history of this era you'd realize that many prominent founders took issue with the federalist papers, among them Jefferson.

...and you'd also realize that many of the federalist papers blatantly repudiate plenty of current right-wing policies.  Indeed, their purpose was to support the ratification of a stronger central government!

Quote
Believe it or not, your fundamental argument  actually is valid within its own context.  If we assume that the term "argument from authority" means something like what you're fuzzily trying to imply that it does, then the people who say "the Constitution only made sense because it was written by people who were born before me" are indeed precisely as stupid as your claim that the Constitution is invalid because it was written by people who were born before you.

Strawman - show me where I say the Constitution is invalid because it was written by people who were born before me.  You clearly think there is some dichotomous "either the founders were 100% right or 100% wrong" choice here.

Quote
So... congratulations, I guess.  You successfully argued a straw man to a draw this time.

No, you've just eliminated any seriousness I could have taken you with by proposing that I claimed the Constitution was invalid because it was written a long time ago, when I made no such statement even in passing.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: kopema on November 17, 2013, 02:31:45 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
QuoteRead the Federalist Papers.  If you disagree with anything written there, it's not because THEY were logic-impaired Neanderthals.

There you go with it again; suggesting that the founding fathers were infallible entities whose word still stands without modification after centuries of the most significant societal advancements in human history.

Didn't make it past the FIRST WORD in that sentence did you?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 02:34:05 PM
Quote from: kopema on November 17, 2013, 02:31:45 PM
There you go with it again; suggesting that the founding fathers were infallible entities whose word still stands without modification after centuries of the most significant societal advancements in human history.


Didn't make it past the FIRST WORD in that sentence did you?

Yes.  It was "if you disagree with them you are logic impaired".  Do you think Jefferson, who disagreed with plenty of the federalist papers, was logic impaired?  Oh, wait, did I spoil for you that the founders bickered and fought even moreso than modern politicians?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on November 17, 2013, 03:23:10 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 02:34:05 PM
Yes.  It was "if you disagree with them you are logic impaired".  Do you think Jefferson, who disagreed with plenty of the federalist papers, was logic impaired?  Oh, wait, did I spoil for you that the founders bickered and fought even moreso than modern politicians?
You don't even know why the Federalist papers were drawn up, do you? :lol:
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 03:31:38 PM
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 03:23:10 PM
You don't even know why the Federalist papers were drawn up, do you? :lol:

Sure I do.  They were drawn up in support of the ratification of the Constitution, and, ironically enough (as I've pointed out earlier) actually to strengthen the central government.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: kopema on November 17, 2013, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 02:34:05 PM
QuoteRead the Federalist Papers.  If you disagree with anything written there, it's not because THEY were logic-impaired Neanderthals.
QuoteThere you go with it again; suggesting that the founding fathers were infallible entities whose word still stands without modification after centuries of the most significant societal advancements in human history.
QuoteDidn't make it past the FIRST WORD in that sentence did you?
Yes.  It was "if you disagree with them you are logic impaired".

So, among a great many other things, you don't know how to count.  At all.  Or, evidently, even grasp the fundamental concept thereof.

People give liberal Internet trolls way too much credit.  They keep accusing you guys of having "poor reading comprehension."  But the sad fact is, that's the only kind of comprehension you DO have.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: kopema on November 17, 2013, 03:44:43 PM
So, among a great many other things, you don't know how to count.  At all.  Or, evidently, even grasp the fundamental concept thereof.

:lol:

You asked me if I had read past the first word.  I cited a phrase that is clearly past the first word.  Are you blind, retarded or just a conservative?  Or are you actually trying to base your argument on my using the word "it"?

And you still haven't countered the point that by your criteria Thomas Jefferson was a logic impaired neanderthal.

Quote
People give liberal Internet trolls way too much credit.  They keep accusing you guys of having "poor reading comprehension."  But the sad fact is, that's the only kind of comprehension you DO have.

Statistically speaking liberals are more likely to have higher educations, particularly in math and science, than conservatives.  But then again, why bother to actually do the research when you can vaguely accuse me of not being able to count...lol the irony here.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: kopema on November 17, 2013, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 03:51:10 PM
You asked me if I had read past the first word.

No, I didn't.

I'll try typing more slowly this time on the off chance that it might somehow help you:  You clearly understand how to read; and absolutely nothing else.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 10:14:39 PM
It's obvious you don't understand my argument at all.  I'll illustrate this with an analogy.

Take an equilateral triangle of sides length 10 centered around the origin and rotate it around the z axis.  How many radians would you need to rotate it by to end up with a volume equivalent to that of a triangular prism one half the volume of a radius sphere?

Let's see if you can figure out what I'm teaching you here.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Mountainshield on December 01, 2013, 11:02:30 AM
Principles are timess but the application of these principles change. The Constitution as it was framed, flawed or not, still gives gives the best principles for a civil and free society to exist, the application of these principles should change to meet the needs of the contemporary citizens and the constitution allows this.

This does not mean the constitution ever needs to be changed, and if it needs to be changed like it did with the 13th amendment it was done in line with the principles of the constutition and the intent of the founders in securing liberty for all. The principles of the constitution remains the same after the 13th amendement but the application changed to meet the demand at the time.

The proposed changes or wanton destruction of the constitution these socialist seek are the opposite to the principles of the constitution.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Montesquieu on December 08, 2013, 07:39:42 PM
I'm trying to glean a point from the OP, or were there several?

Without honoring an original intent, then the words of the Constitution really mean nothing but a judge's own bias. Granted, that bias can also involve an interpretation of what the founders meant.

It should not be ignored that we adopted a common law judiciary from England. Much of our law is not codified because of English equitable sensibilities, and instead is dictated to us from judges. That means the interpretation of the Constitution does actually change. It's what common law countries such as the United States do. In non-common law countries, judges have very limited ability to rule laws unconstitutional, because the civil code is taken literally.

Even so, judges in common or civil law countries do look back at the debates between lawmakers to get a better idea of what the law means, whether it is a constitutional test or not. Ultimately, it is this standard that should be honored and it keeps the least bias out of our case law.

Now as for the rest of the OP, we know that the founders were not perfect, and no human is. The form of government they gave us is one that can be changed, because they anticipated change. They may have even anticipated a day when slavery was no longer accepted or legal. Their moral flaws, which at the time were just starting to be deemed so, do not damn the basic structure of our government.

Regarding some of the exact wording, it is actually true that some clauses are elastic and some are strict. The elastic clauses in present circumstances are difficult to apply to the minds of 18th century politicians. However, it should not be ignored that an interpretation that trends too liberal will create a Constitution with practically no authority, i.e. an "anything goes" interpretation makes the Constitution irrelevant really.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: grace_note on December 13, 2013, 09:18:10 AM
You're forgetting one major, important thing: the Constitution is the law. Whether you think it's antiquated or outdated is your business, but it's still the law. You're correct that the framers did understand that times change and some aspects of it may need to be updated. But that's what the amendment process is for. So if you have a problem with some aspect of the Constitution, like say, the 2nd amendment, then you'll have to go through the amendment process. Simple as that. Good luck getting two thirds of the electorate to agree to that!
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: TboneAgain on December 13, 2013, 09:57:02 AM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 10:14:39 PM
It's obvious you don't understand my argument at all.  I'll illustrate this with an analogy.

Take an equilateral triangle of sides length 10 centered around the origin and rotate it around the z axis.  How many radians would you need to rotate it by to end up with a volume equivalent to that of a triangular prism one half the volume of a radius sphere?

Let's see if you can figure out what I'm teaching you here.

I know! You're teaching us to ignore you.

I've learned my lesson!
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Ek Ehecatl on December 13, 2013, 12:45:41 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on December 13, 2013, 09:57:02 AM
I know! You're teaching us to ignore you.

I've learned my lesson!

Perfect!!!!  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: TboneAgain on December 13, 2013, 03:14:18 PM
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on December 13, 2013, 02:53:15 PM


Quotenstein is loosed upon the land once more.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2013, 05:18:54 PM
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on December 13, 2013, 02:53:15 PM

Either you learn to use the damn quote, or I'll put your every post on filter.
Meaning, you'll have to wait for a mod to approve it, and that could take days!
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: walkstall on December 13, 2013, 07:11:01 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2013, 05:18:54 PM
Either you learn to use the damn quote, or I'll put your every post on filter.
Meaning, you'll have to wait for a mod to approve it, and that could take days!

:thumbsup:
There are currently no posts awaiting approval.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2013, 07:12:32 PM
Quote from: walkstall on December 13, 2013, 07:11:01 PM
:thumbsup:
There are currently no posts awaiting approval.
:lol:
Give him a day.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: walkstall on December 13, 2013, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2013, 07:12:32 PM
:lol:
Give him a day.


How many posts will it hold. :lol:
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2013, 07:19:44 PM
Quote from: walkstall on December 13, 2013, 07:14:00 PM

How many posts will it hold. :lol:
:lol:
The next post he fucks up, let me know and I'll put his account in your hands.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Graham R.A. Garner on December 16, 2013, 08:29:55 AM
I don't find it particularly helpful to attempt to divine the "original intent" of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight. Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic in our views.  (We no longer go about our lives in powdered wigs and small clothes.)  I think it must be admitted that the Constitution is a "living document," as evident by the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times since its adoption and ratification by the several states; which is a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the framers in making provision for such future changes. Surely, they could not have intended that we be ruled by their dead hands.

Certainly, times have changed.  Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today.  But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: supsalemgr on December 16, 2013, 08:50:32 AM
Quote from: Graham R.A. Garner on December 16, 2013, 08:29:55 AM
I don't find it particularly helpful to attempt to divine the "original intent" of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight. Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic in our views.  (We no longer go about our lives in powdered wigs and small clothes.)  I think it must be admitted that the Constitution is a "living document," as evident by the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times since its adoption and ratification by the several states; which is a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the framers in making provision for such future changes. Surely, they could not have intended that we be ruled by their dead hands.

Certainly, times have changed.  Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today.  But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.

The wisdom of our "founding fathers" is truly something to behold. Definitely including the amendment process acknowledged they had the foresight to realize change would come. I believe they were brilliant in structuring the amendment process to assure a small majority will not be able to make changes for selfish reasons.

Welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: Liberals and education in math and science
Post by: MisterVeritis on December 21, 2013, 02:11:04 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 03:51:10 PM
Statistically speaking liberals are more likely to have higher educations, particularly in math and science, than conservatives. 
Assuming you are right why do you think that is?
Just about everyone I know, meaning all those I work with, have degrees in engineering disciplines, math or physics. It is possible that one or two are liberals. All the rest are independents or conservatives.

About twenty percent self-identify as liberals. Twice as many self-identify as conservatives.

And am I going to have to type in hard to read letters on every message I post? If so I will move on to a friendlier site.
Title: Re: Liberals and education in math and science
Post by: Solar on December 21, 2013, 02:24:18 PM
Quote from: MisterVeritis on December 21, 2013, 02:11:04 PM
Assuming you are right why do you think that is?
Just about everyone I know, meaning all those I work with, have degrees in engineering disciplines, math or physics. It is possible that one or two are liberals. All the rest are independents or conservatives.

About twenty percent self-identify as liberals. Twice as many self-identify as conservatives.

And am I going to have to type in hard to read letters on every message I post? If so I will move on to a friendlier site.
Welcome to the forum MV, the moron you just responded to is your typical brain dead lib, believes everything the left ushers out, regardless of fact.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Dan on December 22, 2013, 05:18:41 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 03:51:10 PM
Statistically speaking liberals are more likely to have higher educations, particularly in math and science, than conservatives.  But then again, why bother to actually do the research when you can vaguely accuse me of not being able to count...lol the irony here.

What are your sources for this alleged statistical superiority of liberals with math and science?

What does an alleged superiority in science have to do with counting?

What does the alleged superiority of liberals in aggregate have to do with your ability to count?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: daidalos on January 03, 2014, 10:08:59 AM
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.

First of all, you cannot appropriately, nor correctly interpret the legal meaning of the Constitution and it's purpose unless, you also understand the original intent of why something was placed in the document.

And you are right, while it is indeed the highest law of our nation, it is not immutable, written in stone. Never to be  changed.

If you disagree with something in it, if you don't like that something is in it, you have every right, to use the amendment process and change our Constitution.

Provided you can get enough of your fellow Americans to agree with your position and also call for amending the document.

However, that is not what we have today though.

No instead we have those (liberals) who say throw out original intent, so we can then interpret the Constitution any way WE wish too!

And thus then they may change the Constitution to suit their/our own political will, without having to go through the bother of getting enough Americans to agree with us that we can use and avail ourselves of that old amendment process.

Nice try at arguing against original intent though op.

Whats your next argument against it going to be?

"Well Barack does it, so I can too" as if two wrongs equal a right?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Dan on January 07, 2014, 05:03:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: TboneAgain on January 07, 2014, 07:10:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: RGCheek on January 07, 2014, 08:37:32 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Dan on January 07, 2014, 06:20:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: daidalos on January 16, 2014, 11:00:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: supsalemgr on January 19, 2014, 11:17:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: TboneAgain on January 19, 2014, 01:29:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on February 12, 2014, 04:31:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: supsalemgr on February 12, 2014, 07:20:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on February 12, 2014, 07:25:17 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 08:32:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on February 12, 2014, 09:03:41 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 09:45:50 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 12, 2014, 09:03:41 AM
So freedom of speech, religious freedoms, protection from illegal search and seizure are no longer applicable?

Of course they're applicable.  The question is, and always has been, how to balance a document written by people in the 1780s with the innovations of 2014.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on February 12, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 09:45:50 AM
Of course they're applicable.  The question is, and always has been, how to balance a document written by people in the 1780s with the innovations of 2014.
WRONG!!!
The Bill of Rights is designed to keep an oppressive govt at bay, these Rights are not granted by the govt, rather God, so they cannot simply be taken away.

There is a reason for the 2nd, it's to insure we keep these Rights.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: supsalemgr on February 12, 2014, 10:19:39 AM
Quote from: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 09:45:50 AM
Of course they're applicable.  The question is, and always has been, how to balance a document written by people in the 1780s with the innovations of 2014.

You are aware we have a process in place to handle exactly what you are saying? It is called the amendment process. So what type amendment would you suggest?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 10:42:06 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 12, 2014, 10:19:39 AM
You are aware we have a process in place to handle exactly what you are saying? It is called the amendment process. So what type amendment would you suggest?

An amendment isn't the problem; the problem is to apply our current amendments, written 220+ years ago, to changing conditions.  There's no need to update the wording of the amendments, we just have to figure out how to interpret them.

Quote from: Solar on February 12, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
WRONG!!!
The Bill of Rights is designed to keep an oppressive govt at bay, these Rights are not granted by the govt, rather God, so they cannot simply be taken away.

There is a reason for the 2nd, it's to insure we keep these Rights.

That completely misses the point of what I'm saying.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 12, 2014, 10:58:15 AM
Don't we have something called Amendments? :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: walkstall on February 12, 2014, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 12, 2014, 10:58:15 AM
Don't we have something called Amendments? :rolleyes:

I think you people are talking way over his head!  Remember Dem want it right now!   Amendments were for 150 to 200 years ago.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on February 12, 2014, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 10:42:06 AM
An amendment isn't the problem; the problem is to apply our current amendments, written 220+ years ago, to changing conditions.  There's no need to update the wording of the amendments, we just have to figure out how to interpret them.

That completely misses the point of what I'm saying.
Oh, I see, you're a moral relativist.
There is absolutely no reason to change anything, the law was laid out quite clearly, it wasn't until you morons started screwing with it, was it in need of repair and a restoration of Liberties.
Which is exactly what the TEA will do, REMOVE the Govt knife from the throats of the people.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Dan on February 15, 2014, 09:59:19 AM
Leftists revel in the subjectivity of their "interpretation" and that is how the will of the founders is circumvented by allowing the bill of rights to be materially altered without going through the methods of change outlined in the constitution.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: supsalemgr on February 15, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 10:42:06 AM
An amendment isn't the problem; the problem is to apply our current amendments, written 220+ years ago, to changing conditions.  There's no need to update the wording of the amendments, we just have to figure out how to interpret them.

That completely misses the point of what I'm saying.

"An amendment isn't the problem; the problem is to apply our current amendments, written 220+ years ago, to changing conditions."

That is exactly what I said. However, it is clear you do not wish to pursue making changes by the process in place. Are you suggesting that the party in power should be able to make any change they deem would bring the constitution up to date?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: penrod on March 08, 2014, 05:19:15 PM
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.

It Seems Thomas Jefferson quite agrees

Quote"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

    —Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."

   —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best."

   —Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
   
    —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 26, 2014, 08:43:15 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 12, 2014, 11:16:30 AM
Oh, I see, you're a moral relativist.

Recognizing that morals have improved since the 1780s does not make one a moral relativist.  By that logic you would be a moral relativist, unless if you seriously think that we should turn the clock back to the social policies of our slave-owning past.

Quote
There is absolutely no reason to change anything, the law was laid out quite clearly,

The original Constitution did not even get the question of slavery right; it is a product of its times, and the notion that it should be interpreted precisely the same way it was back in the 18th century is to assume that we haven't progressed as a society since, which is just absurd.

Quote
Which is exactly what the TEA will do, REMOVE the Govt knife from the throats of the people.

By using the government to deport undocumented immigrants and ban gay marriage?  That's the limited, Constitutional government at work?   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: CG6468 on July 27, 2014, 07:26:11 AM
penrod, never use 50 words when 10,000 will do.

KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE LONG DIATRIBES!  :mad:
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on July 27, 2014, 07:31:59 AM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 26, 2014, 08:43:15 PM
Recognizing that morals have improved since the 1780s does not make one a moral relativist.  By that logic you would be a moral relativist, unless if you seriously think that we should turn the clock back to the social policies of our slave-owning past.

The original Constitution did not even get the question of slavery right; it is a product of its times, and the notion that it should be interpreted precisely the same way it was back in the 18th century is to assume that we haven't progressed as a society since, which is just absurd.

By using the government to deport undocumented immigrants and ban gay marriage?  That's the limited, Constitutional government at work?   :rolleyes:
I'll tell you this once, cut the bull shit of moving the goal posts and creating straw men!
No one was talking about any of that shit, it's like me claiming you're in league with Hitler because he too was a socialist, so cut the shit, and if you can't bring real debate to the forum, then I suggest you stop posting Now!

I'm serious, that was your only warning, your shtick has run it's course.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: daidalos on July 27, 2014, 07:34:34 AM
Quote from: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 10:42:06 AM
An amendment isn't the problem; the problem is to apply our current amendments, written 220+ years ago, to changing conditions.  There's no need to update the wording of the amendments, we just have to figure out how to interpret them.

That completely misses the point of what I'm saying.

Oh here let me assist you with that. Get out your Constitution see the words written/printend on the paper? Read them, read them outloud, then ask yourself, what does what I have just read say?

Voila, interpreting the Constitution.

Come on folks the damned document was written sot hat a man with a sixth grade education could read and understand it.

IT's simpler than the Bible, and well you don't get much more basic than that. ;)
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: CG6468 on July 27, 2014, 10:43:12 AM
Figure it out? WTF planet do you live on?
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: Solar on July 27, 2014, 07:31:59 AM
I'll tell you this once, cut the bull shit of moving the goal posts and creating straw men!

Here's a hint: when you accuse someone of making a logical fallacy, you need to be a little more specific than quoting several lines of text, consisting of several different contentions, and vaguely throwing out "goal posts and creating straw men!"

That's why it's so difficult to reason with the likes of you: I was careful to do a line by line, point by point reply of your argument.  That way, I have something to say, and even if I'm completely wrong we can continue a substantive discussion because I've made it clear where I stand and what I think of where you stand.

In contrast, 90% of our correspondence involves you just responding to 20 lines of text with a completely substance-less, vague rebuttal like the one you just gave.  You would be laughed out of my high school debate team.  They would have dropped their open walk in policy and instituted try outs just to make sure someone like you never slipped through the cracks again.


This is literally what anybody interested in any kind of debate does on instinct.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Possum on July 28, 2014, 04:04:24 PM
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.
Of course you can apply the b of r. Piracy was wrong 200 years ago and is wrong today. Does it really matter if theft takes place on the internet or on the high seas? It would be like saying the 10 commandments do not apply today because they were written thousands of years ago. Yes, times have changed, but wrong is still wrong.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: supsalemgr on July 28, 2014, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: s3779m on July 28, 2014, 04:04:24 PM
Of course you can apply the b of r. Piracy was wrong 200 years ago and is wrong today. Does it really matter if theft takes place on the internet or on the high seas? It would be like saying the 10 commandments do not apply today because they were written thousands of years ago. Yes, times have changed, but wrong is still wrong.

Good response. Just another lib attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: daidalos on July 28, 2014, 04:50:06 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:48:57 AM
It most certainly is what it means.  If you agree with specific arguments from specific founding fathers at specific times in their lives, perhaps you could just defend the points on their actual merit without trying to name drop famous dead old men.  And even if you do not personally fall for this fallacy, your conservative politicians certainly do.  Again and again.  All the fucking time.
Original intent means what was behind, what was the historical context of the time in which a law was written. It means to take into account what it was the politicians at the time were trying to address and accomplish.

However lets suppose for a moment you are correct and it is an argument from authority.

So what. The Constitution was and is, the highest law of the land. One would be hard pressed to find much more authority than that.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Solar on July 28, 2014, 05:03:59 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 01:57:52 PM
Here's a hint: when you accuse someone of making a logical fallacy, you need to be a little more specific than quoting several lines of text, consisting of several different contentions, and vaguely throwing out "goal posts and creating straw men!"

That's why it's so difficult to reason with the likes of you: I was careful to do a line by line, point by point reply of your argument.  That way, I have something to say, and even if I'm completely wrong we can continue a substantive discussion because I've made it clear where I stand and what I think of where you stand.

In contrast, 90% of our correspondence involves you just responding to 20 lines of text with a completely substance-less, vague rebuttal like the one you just gave.  You would be laughed out of my high school debate team.  They would have dropped their open walk in policy and instituted try outs just to make sure someone like you never slipped through the cracks again.


This is literally what anybody interested in any kind of debate does on instinct.
Are you so thick that what I sad completely went over your head?
One more chance, read what I said and take it as the Gospel, I won't warn your trollish ass again.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 08:16:18 PM
Quote from: daidalos on July 28, 2014, 04:50:06 PM
  Original intent means what was behind, what was the historical context of the time in which a law was written. It means to take into account what it was the politicians at the time were trying to address and accomplish.

However lets suppose for a moment you are correct and it is an argument from authority.

So what. The Constitution was and is, the highest law of the land. One would be hard pressed to find much more authority than that.

The Constitution is an authority, but it is not an infallible authority; it can be challenged, and it can be amended.  That was one of the whole points behind its adoption!  Original intentionalists focus more on the intents of their preferred founder than what interpretation would be most logical and effective in a modern society; that is pretty much the caricature of blind dogma.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: Novanglus on August 04, 2014, 09:03:59 PM
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...

I agree with caution

liberals that make this point will often use the fact that the constitution is not perfect to argue for ignoring it or magically "reinterpreting" it. Then the words "interstate commerce" are "reinterpreted" to mean "all commerce." and the words "general welfare" are interpreted to mean "whatever the hell congress wants at the moment"

The constitution is not perfect - that's why there is a method for changing it (note: that method does not involve 9 wise men in bath robes with little wood hammers). If you want to change the constitution, speak your voice, gather support, lobby and make the change the right way - otherwise you are a tyrant.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: ChristopherABrown on October 26, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
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.

Very informative post underlining our responsibility to think like the framers of the constitution.  I use the term framers because the founding documents encircle a set of principles as much as they specify them.  And that is not by design in its most important aspects.

What you say about the contentious aspects and conflicts between various factions and their key representatives speaks to the competition for inclusion and exclusion of concept in the framing documents.  We really do not know, as a people, who was fighting to keep what out.  That of course would defeat the goal of the obsufucation we have reason to know was happening.

Perhaps the best indicators are to look at the most serious threats to the 1787 principles, try to understand how they could exist, then consider that the causes are due to the omissions, deficiencies or exclusions that are there.
Title: Re: The Original Intent Argument
Post by: walkstall on October 26, 2014, 02:01:40 PM
Quote from: ChristopherABrown on October 26, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
Very informative post underlining our responsibility to think like the framers of the constitution.  I use the term framers because the founding documents encircle a set of principles as much as they specify them.  And that is not by design in its most important aspects.

What you say about the contentious aspects and conflicts between various factions and their key representatives speaks to the competition for inclusion and exclusion of concept in the framing documents.  We really do not know, as a people, who was fighting to keep what out.  That of course would defeat the goal of the obsufucation we have reason to know was happening.

Perhaps the best indicators are to look at the most serious threats to the 1787 principles, try to understand how they could exist, then consider that the causes are due to the omissions, deficiencies or exclusions that are there.

You are posting to someone who can not reply.