Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

[Procrustes Stretched]

Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

Using the original intent argument(s) what do the theories say about Cruel and Unusual punishment?

1) Slavery?

2) Stocks & Pillory?

3) Humiliation from the bench and as a sentence to be carried out in public?

4) Death Penalty?

---

What did the founders and framers mean by a jury of one's peers? How about trials where everyone knew everyone in town, the county, the state?

People are all over the place on this one. Catholics and Protestants who differ from their own church's teachings out of personal or political convenience.

Who in American politics, justice, and law is more principled in this area, surely not the originalists & textualists.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

note:
it is said beating an aggressor half to death didn't result in a prosecution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The originalist’s pretense that [one can derive authoritative interpretations applicable to present disputes in this manner] makes originalism an example of bad faith in Sartre’s sense—bad faith as a denial of freedom to choose, and so the shirking of personal responsibility...[Justice Breyer also gets some criticism here].

Sartrean bad faith need not be conscious….He considers his decisions legitimate, concludes they must therefore be legalist, and constructs a legalist rationale that convinces him that his decision was not the product of his personal ideology.

Balkinization: Judge Posner Skewers Textualism-Originalism (Thomas, Scalia), And Reveals the Increasing Politicization of Judging by Conservatives

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

Using the original intent argument(s) what do the theories say about Cruel and Unusual punishment?

Very very simple! they say use the standards of the day. Next? It seems you have no idea what originalism is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

Using the original intent argument(s) what do the theories say about Cruel and Unusual punishment?

Very very simple! they say use the standards of the day. Next? It seems you have no idea what originalism is.

Jesus, the Turnip Truck dumped a load.

You're analysis is flawed

 

[konradv]

Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

Using the original intent argument(s) what do the theories say about Cruel and Unusual punishment?

Very very simple! they say use the standards of the day. Next? It seems you have no idea what originalism is.

The trouble with "original intent" is the notion that the was ONE. In any group that large for there have been a single intent is a statistical impossibility. That's like saying all the members of USMB agree on what the board rules should be. Good luck with that one.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

Using the original intent argument(s) what do the theories say about Cruel and Unusual punishment?

Very very simple! they say use the standards of the day. Next? It seems you have no idea what originalism is.

The trouble with "original intent" is the notion that the was ONE. In any group that large for there have been a single intent is a statistical impossibility. That's like saying all the members of USMB agree on what the board rules should be. Good luck with that one.

dear, that is too stupid!! They all agreed to the words written so they all agreed to the meaning of those words. Still over your head?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

Using the original intent argument(s) what do the theories say about Cruel and Unusual punishment?

Very very simple! they say use the standards of the day. Next? It seems you have no idea what originalism is.

Jesus, the Turnip Truck dumped a load.

You're analysis is flawed

and as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to say why, or even to know it is necessary to say why.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

Using the original intent argument(s) what do the theories say about Cruel and Unusual punishment?

1) Slavery?

2) Stocks & Pillory?

3) Humiliation from the bench and as a sentence to be carried out in public?

4) Death Penalty?

---

What did the founders and framers mean by a jury of one's peers? How about trials where everyone knew everyone in town, the county, the state?

People are all over the place on this one. Catholics and Protestants who differ from their own church's teachings out of personal or political convenience.

Who in American politics, justice, and law is more principled in this area, surely not the originalists & textualists.

FYI, cruel and unusual punishment is a clause in the 14th Amendment, and is not part of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Next stupid question form the board's resident non expert in everything in 3...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

Using the original intent argument(s) what do the theories say about Cruel and Unusual punishment?

Very very simple! they say use the standards of the day. Next? It seems you have no idea what originalism is.

The trouble with "original intent" is the notion that the was ONE. In any group that large for there have been a single intent is a statistical impossibility. That's like saying all the members of USMB agree on what the board rules should be. Good luck with that one.

dear, that is too stupid!! They all agreed to the words written so they all agreed to the meaning of those words. Still over your head?

Nonsense.

Constitutional originalism, textualism, strict constructionism, and literalism are all fatally flawed as a consequence of their hostility to the settled and accepted doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the judiciary as practiced by Colonial courts for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era, and as authorized by Articles III and VI of the Federal Constitution: the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.


Indeed, all perceptions of the Constitution involve interpretation, and there's nothing in any primary source that sanctions a 'literal' or 'narrow' interpretation of the Founding Document, or for that matter forbids a more broad interpretation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there's nothing in any primary source that sanctions a 'literal' or 'narrow' interpretation of the Founding Document, or for that matter forbids a more broad interpretation.

too stupid by 1000%. Why have the document at all if it doesn't mean what it said and can be intrepreted anyway you want?

Liberals spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and elected Obama. Of course liberals hate basic American Constitutional principles because those principles are not Marxist principles and they obviously support very very limited govt like the kind we had when the Founders governed America in very minimal fashion under the Constitution they wrote!

 

[whitehall]

The Founding Fathers were absolute geniuses but they weren't gods. They created the 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights that forbade "cruel and unusual punishment" and they weren't specific about the punishment because they left it up to future generations and the Supreme Court to determine the limits.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Founding Fathers were absolute geniuses but they weren't gods. They created the 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights that forbade "cruel and unusual punishment" and they weren't specific about the punishment because they left it up to future generations and the Supreme Court to determine the limits.

what makes you think they were not specific?? If they had punishment then which they obviously did they obviously did not think it was cruel or unusual so that then becomes the model.

Would they have thought 5 days of torture leading to death at the end was cruel and unusual? Obviously since it would have been considered cruel and unusual by the standards of the day.
.

 

[konradv]

Founding Fathers/Framers: Original Intent and Theories of Originalism & Textualism

Using the original intent argument(s) what do the theories say about Cruel and Unusual punishment?

Very very simple! they say use the standards of the day. Next? It seems you have no idea what originalism is.

The trouble with "original intent" is the notion that the was ONE. In any group that large for there have been a single intent is a statistical impossibility. That's like saying all the members of USMB agree on what the board rules should be. Good luck with that one.

dear, that is too stupid!! They all agreed to the words written so they all agreed to the meaning of those words. Still over your head?

They agreed to the words written as evidenced by their signatures, but I know of no source that proves they agreed about the meanings of all those words. If you have such as cite please provide, otherwise your post isn't worth much. You're just declaring something as true that you can't prove.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They agreed to the words written as evidenced by their signatures, but I know of no source that proves they agreed about the meanings of all those words.

dear, OMG,. the meaning of the words is in the dictionary. If they didn't like the meaning of the words they agreed to they would have agreed to different words!! Are you catching on?

 

[konradv]

They agreed to the words written as evidenced by their signatures, but I know of no source that proves they agreed about the meanings of all those words.

dear, OMG,. the meaning of the words is in the dictionary. If they didn't like the meaning of the words they agreed to they would have agreed to different words!! Are you catching on?

Many words have more than one definition. Then there's the order the words are put in or punctuation or lack there of that can lead to ambiguity. I don't really think you're reading the Constitution, but merely believing what you've been told to believe. Once again, your assertions of knowledge don't constitute proof.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Many words have more than one definition. .

dear, how stupid. We don't say the language has no meaning because words have more than one meaning.

 

[whitehall]

The Founding Fathers were absolute geniuses but they weren't gods. They created the 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights that forbade "cruel and unusual punishment" and they weren't specific about the punishment because they left it up to future generations and the Supreme Court to determine the limits.

what makes you think they were not specific?? If they had punishment then which they obviously did they obviously did not think it was cruel or unusual so that then becomes the model.

Would they have thought 5 days of torture leading to death at the end was cruel and unusual? Obviously since it would have been considered cruel and unusual by the standards of the day.
.

How does 18th century punishment "become the model" for the future judicial issues? Regardless of the belief structure of modern victims of the US education system the FF envisioned changes in the social structure of America so they created the Supreme Court to judge Constitutional issues and they gave Americans the right to hire and fire the lawmakers every 2 and 6 years. What could be a more ideal system?

 

[konradv]

Many words have more than one definition. .

dear, how stupid. We don't say the language has no meaning because words have more than one meaning.

No, I'm saying that you have no right to tell us what the meaning is. That's why we have a SC.

 

[jwoodie]

As usual, Liberals playing word games. Original Intent should not be discussed in the context of specific policies, but of governing principles. For example, most of the references to slavery reflected the practical accommodation of an existing institution. The only governing principle was ending the importation of slaves in 20 years.