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?

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.

There are tons of sources that show they DIS-AGREED over meanings and interpretations.

Good gawd, it's what the two party system was all about.

*embarrassed for the kon-man*

 

[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.

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...

The resident take-everything-literally-while-ignoring-inferred-premises strikes again!


The USMB Windbagh is known to take simple statements into long winded posts that go nowhere (oh they go in circles, which is inferred to mean - nowhere -- but Windy will argue a circle is somewhere)

btw: 6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

[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.

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...

The resident take-everything-literally-while-ignoring-inferred-premises strikes again!


The USMB Windbagh is known to take simple statements into long winded posts that go nowhere (oh they go in circles, which is inferred to mean - nowhere -- but Windy will argue a circle is somewhere)

btw: 6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

As to later Amendments, the originalists and textualists still argue the same --

 

[bendog]

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

If the point is that "original intent" simple bullshite, and republican justices since 1980 are more ideologically committed to political, or returning to some pre-Warren or even pre-New Deal constitutional interpretation, than democrat nominated justices ... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

 

[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.

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

dear, everyone has a right to tell us what they think the Constitution means. Imagine how very very slow you must be not to know that? Also, dear, probably 100% agree that the SCOTUS's interpretation becomes the law of the land. Imagine how slow you must be to feel smart when pointing out what everyone already knows?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

dear, there have been no different ducks since Plato and Aristotle. She is a liberal plain and simple and almost always votes that way! OMG!! she was a liberal nominee from the get go!! Its been in all the papers, atg least on this planet.

 

[bendog]

... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

dear, there have been no different ducks since Plato and Aristotle. She is a liberal plain and simple and almost always votes that way! OMG!! she was a liberal nominee from the get go!! Its been in all the papers, atg least on this planet.

dear, you're a different duck.

 

[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

If the point is that "original intent" simple bullshite, and republican justices since 1980 are more ideologically committed to political, or returning to some pre-Warren or even pre-New Deal constitutional interpretation, than democrat nominated justices ... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

I agree Sotomayor is different, but in what way do you see her as being different?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

If the point is that "original intent" simple bullshite, and republican justices since 1980 are more ideologically committed to political, or returning to some pre-Warren or even pre-New Deal constitutional interpretation, than democrat nominated justices ... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

I agree Sotomayor is different, but in what way do you see her as being different?

Dear, Obama nominated her. What does that tell you?

 

[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

If the point is that "original intent" simple bullshite, and republican justices since 1980 are more ideologically committed to political, or returning to some pre-Warren or even pre-New Deal constitutional interpretation, than democrat nominated justices ... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

I agree Sotomayor is different, but in what way do you see her as being different?

Dear, Obama nominated her. What does that tell you?

Isn't there some rock nearby you can go crawl under? I rarely entertain you racists, but today is your lucky day

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

If the point is that "original intent" simple bullshite, and republican justices since 1980 are more ideologically committed to political, or returning to some pre-Warren or even pre-New Deal constitutional interpretation, than democrat nominated justices ... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

I agree Sotomayor is different, but in what way do you see her as being different?

Dear, Obama nominated her. What does that tell you?

Isn't there some rock nearby you can go crawl under? I rarely entertain you racists, but today is your lucky day

Dear, Obama nominated her. What does that tell you.

 

[bendog]

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

If the point is that "original intent" simple bullshite, and republican justices since 1980 are more ideologically committed to political, or returning to some pre-Warren or even pre-New Deal constitutional interpretation, than democrat nominated justices ... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

I agree Sotomayor is different, but in what way do you see her as being different?

Oh, well Ed may be onto something though typically without a clue. Sontomayor may or may not be "a liberal," but while its early days, I think she may view the law as having a duty of sorts to be responsive to people and real needs. I think its way early to say, but typically WJC appointees and Kagan seem to be more traditional centrist/left jurists who interpret the law as they believe it was intended, and the constitution fairly narrowly in it's restrictions on congress's power.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sontomayor may or may not be "a liberal," .

OMG!!! I guess Obama was not sure when he nominated her!!! See why we say slow pure ignorance?

 

[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

If the point is that "original intent" simple bullshite, and republican justices since 1980 are more ideologically committed to political, or returning to some pre-Warren or even pre-New Deal constitutional interpretation, than democrat nominated justices ... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

I agree Sotomayor is different, but in what way do you see her as being different?

Oh, well Ed may be onto something though typically without a clue. Sontomayor may or may not be "a liberal," but while its early days, I think she may view the law as having a duty of sorts to be responsive to people and real needs. I think its way early to say, but typically WJC appointees and Kagan seem to be more traditional centrist/left jurists who interpret the law as they believe it was intended, and the constitution fairly narrowly in it's restrictions on congress's power.

Do you believe the law has a duty of sorts to be responsive to people's needs?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you believe the law has a duty of sorts to be responsive to people's needs?

utterly meaningless and stupid question. Is the law going to be responsive to dogs' or trees' needs? You must think before you post

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do you believe the law has a duty of sorts to be responsive to people's needs?

utterly meaningless and stupid question. Is the law going to be responsive to dogs' or trees' needs? You must think before you post

Huh? Dogs and trees are not citizens.

*sigh* to think you are allowed to vote

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you believe the law has a duty of sorts to be responsive to people's needs?

utterly meaningless and stupid question. Is the law going to be responsive to dogs' or trees' needs? You must think before you post

Huh? Dogs and trees are not citizens.

*sigh* to think you are allowed to vote

dear I did not say they were citizens. Bet $10,000 or run away with your liberal tail between your legs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do you believe the law has a duty of sorts to be responsive to people's needs?

utterly meaningless and stupid question. Is the law going to be responsive to dogs' or trees' needs? You must think before you post

Huh? Dogs and trees are not citizens.

*sigh* to think you are allowed to vote

dear I did not say they were citizens. Bet $10,000 or run away with your liberal tail between your legs.

Well you think laws apply to dogs and trees?

 

[jwoodie]

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.

There are tons of sources that show they DIS-AGREED over meanings and interpretations.

Good gawd, it's what the two party system was all about.

*embarrassed for the kon-man*

The two party system did not exist during the writing of the constitution.

 

[jwoodie]

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

If the point is that "original intent" simple bullshite, and republican justices since 1980 are more ideologically committed to political, or returning to some pre-Warren or even pre-New Deal constitutional interpretation, than democrat nominated justices ... I agree. I think Sontomayor may be a bit of a different duck, though. Early days for her.

I agree Sotomayor is different, but in what way do you see her as being different?

Oh, well Ed may be onto something though typically without a clue. Sontomayor may or may not be "a liberal," but while its early days, I think she may view the law as having a duty of sorts to be responsive to people and real needs. I think its way early to say, but typically WJC appointees and Kagan seem to be more traditional centrist/left jurists who interpret the law as they believe it was intended, and the constitution fairly narrowly in it's restrictions on congress's power.

Do you believe the law has a duty of sorts to be responsive to people's needs?

No, the law doesn't have any duty other than to be clear enough to be enforced and adjudicated. Elected representatives have a duty to be responsive to people's needs and pass laws within the scope of the Constitution.