Gorsuch on Originalism v Living Constitution

[M14 Shooter]

Gorsuch, in his new book - A Republic, if You Can Keep it makes a sound argument:

Living constitutionalists do indeed take the original text and intent on any number of occasions - age requirements for holding federal office, the power to raise militia in cases of "domestic violence" refers to insurrection, not spousal abuse, etc -- and thus, EVERYONE agrees we must interpret the Constitution according to its original wording and intent, at least sometimes.

Thus, his question to living constitutionalists is salient:
What is the plenary and rational basis for when we should stick to the original wording and intent of the Constitution and when should we not?

I look forward to your responses, and lack thereof.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Dekster]

The rational argument is that when a strict construction does not mirror circumstances today as when written, the Court should look at the purpose for which said law was created then and come up with the ruling that achieves the most similar policy intent under present circumstances.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The rational argument is that when a strict construction does not mirror circumstances today as when written,

Interesting
In 1787, the average life expectancy for a white male was 38, today, it is 78.
Should the minimum age to hold the office of President mirror the the circumstances of today and be raised to 72?

the Court should look at the purpose for which said law was created then and come up with the ruling that achieves the most similar policy intent under present circumstances.

Why? Policy should override the constitution?

 

[TNHarley]

The only thing that makes the constitution a "living document" is the amendment process. Period.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only thing that makes the constitution a "living document" is the amendment process. Period.

That's certainly the original intent.

 

[Dekster]

The rational argument is that when a strict construction does not mirror circumstances today as when written,

Interesting
In 1787, the average life expectancy for a white male was 38, today, it is 78.
Should the minimum age to hold the office of President mirror the the circumstances of today and be raised to 72?

the Court should look at the purpose for which said law was created then and come up with the ruling that achieves the most similar policy intent under present circumstances.

Why? Policy should override the constitution?

If you want to raise the age, go ahead and yes, because it is common sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The rational argument is that when a strict construction does not mirror circumstances today as when written,

Interesting
In 1787, the average life expectancy for a white male was 38, today, it is 78.
Should the minimum age to hold the office of President mirror the the circumstances of today and be raised to 72?

the Court should look at the purpose for which said law was created then and come up with the ruling that achieves the most similar policy intent under present circumstances.

Why? Policy should override the constitution?

If you want to raise the age, go ahead and yes, because it is common sense.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gorsuch, in his new book - A Republic, if You Can Keep it makes a sound argument:

Living constitutionalists do indeed take the original text and intent on any number of occasions - age requirements for holding federal office, the power to raise militia in cases of "domestic violence" refers to insurrection, not spousal abuse, etc -- and thus, EVERYONE agrees we must interpret the Constitution according to its original wording and intent, at least sometimes.

Thus, his question to living constitutionalists is salient:
What is the plenary and rational basis for when we should stick to the original wording and intent of the Constitution and when should we not?

I look forward to your responses, and lack thereof.

Response:

it's alive.....It's Alive.....IT'S ALIVE!!!!

 

[Dekster]

The rational argument is that when a strict construction does not mirror circumstances today as when written,

Interesting
In 1787, the average life expectancy for a white male was 38, today, it is 78.
Should the minimum age to hold the office of President mirror the the circumstances of today and be raised to 72?

the Court should look at the purpose for which said law was created then and come up with the ruling that achieves the most similar policy intent under present circumstances.

Why? Policy should override the constitution?

If you want to raise the age, go ahead and yes, because it is common sense.

Thanks for playing.

No problem. Next time ask a question that is at least a little tough.

 

[basquebromance]

big deal, Neil!

 

[M14 Shooter]

The rational argument is that when a strict construction does not mirror circumstances today as when written,

Interesting
In 1787, the average life expectancy for a white male was 38, today, it is 78.
Should the minimum age to hold the office of President mirror the the circumstances of today and be raised to 72?

the Court should look at the purpose for which said law was created then and come up with the ruling that achieves the most similar policy intent under present circumstances.

Why? Policy should override the constitution?

If you want to raise the age, go ahead and yes, because it is common sense.

Thanks for playing.

No problem. Next time ask a question that is at least a little tough.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting, the lack of response from those who believe in a living constitution.

What is the plenary and rational basis for when we should stick to the original wording and intent of the Constitution and when should we not?

 

[Zorro!]

NO. NEXT QUESTION?

Posted at 8:42 am by Gle

 

[M14 Shooter]

NO. NEXT QUESTION?

Posted at 8:42 am by Gle

There's no bias in the media.