Original intent...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
...A favorite catch phrase of some right-wing nuts these days. Do we have any hints as to the thoughts of the framers of the Constitution regarding changes to it...? Whether by amendment or legal interpretation?

<blockquote>I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.</blockquote>

Name that quote! I'll save you the trouble, it was Thomas Jefferson. He understood that for a society to grow and flourish, its institutions must also grow and keep pace with that change and growth. If those institutions fail to keep pace with those changes in a society, stagnation, decay and, eventually, death are the ultimate end for that society.
 
If it wasn't for the LIBERALS who fought to the death, and founded our country......the sheep would be paying their respects to the Queen.
 
sagegirl said:
If it wasn't for the LIBERALS who fought to the death, and founded our country......the sheep would be paying their respects to the Queen.

Another uninformed idiot. But we've had this discussion before, so there is no need to repeat it.
 
Bullypulpit said:
He understood that for a society to grow and flourish, its institutions must also grow and keep pace with that change and growth. If those institutions fail to keep pace with those changes in a society, stagnation, decay and, eventually, death are the ultimate end for that society.

Hmmm....

So, we should change the institutions of affirmative action, open immigration, anti-white discrimination and forced racial integration? Because if these institutions don't change, white Western society will suffer stagnation, decay and, eventually, death?

Why, I quite agree! :cof:

(BTW, TJ also said, "the two races (black and white), being equally free, cannot exist in peace in the same society." I think he was right about that, don't you?)
 
Bullypulpit said:
...A favorite catch phrase of some right-wing nuts these days. Do we have any hints as to the thoughts of the framers of the Constitution regarding changes to it...? Whether by amendment or legal interpretation?

<blockquote>I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.</blockquote>

Name that quote! I'll save you the trouble, it was Thomas Jefferson. He understood that for a society to grow and flourish, its institutions must also grow and keep pace with that change and growth. If those institutions fail to keep pace with those changes in a society, stagnation, decay and, eventually, death are the ultimate end for that society.

Pfftt....... oh, so the decline in Western Civilization is a good thing..... thanks for straightening out on that, Bully. Maybe you ought to pass that sentiment over to your lefty liberal friends who have been trying to get Marxist dogma to work in the real world with no good effect for the past .... 82 years? Maybe it's time for those leftist institutions to grow and keep pace with change and growth, too....


So this Thomas Jefferson... do you mean the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence? That guy?

If so, he is also the same guy that, after the Marbury vs. Madison decision, which formed the foundation of present day policy of "judicial review" (i.e. the power that the Supreme Court reserved for itself to determine whether a piece of legislation is "constitutional") an unauthorized and brazen power grab by the judiciary!

If the same Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'd be turning over in his grave (a little humor, there folks) at the decisions that have come forth from the bench.

Original intent is the only way to ensure that the Constitution remains a viable document. If you allow justices (who by the way, do not have the wisdom of Solomon) to interpret the Constitution any way they see fit, you open the door to abuse and it will be called "progressive". So whichever way the political winds are blowing at the moment, the justices are tempted to decide in favor. If God forbid, cannibalism were to become the thing to do someday, the justices would find a right for that.
 
KarlMarx said:
Pfftt....... oh, so the decline in Western Civilization is a good thing..... thanks for straightening out on that, Bully. Maybe you ought to pass that sentiment over to your lefty liberal friends who have been trying to get Marxist dogma to work in the real world with no good effect for the past .... 82 years? Maybe it's time for those leftist institutions to grow and keep pace with change and growth, too....


So this Thomas Jefferson... do you mean the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence? That guy?

If so, he is also the same guy that, after the Marbury vs. Madison decision, which formed the foundation of present day policy of "judicial review" (i.e. the power that the Supreme Court reserved for itself to determine whether a piece of legislation is "constitutional") an unauthorized and brazen power grab by the judiciary!

If the same Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'd be turning over in his grave (a little humor, there folks) at the decisions that have come forth from the bench.

Original intent is the only way to ensure that the Constitution remains a viable document. If you allow justices (who by the way, do not have the wisdom of Solomon) to interpret the Constitution any way they see fit, you open the door to abuse and it will be called "progressive". So whichever way the political winds are blowing at the moment, the justices are tempted to decide in favor. If God forbid, cannibalism were to become the thing to do someday, the justices would find a right for that.


The "Decline of Western Civilization"...? Hardly...The evolution of Western Civilization, most certainly!
 
Bullypulpit said:
The "Decline of Western Civilization"...? Hardly...The evolution of Western Civilization, most certainly!

I see, you call the slaughter of 40 million babies at the hands of their mothers "evolution"

You call the persecution of Christians and other religious groups by the judiciary and the Left "evolution"

You call the trampling of the right of free speech on most college campuses and intolerance of any viewpoint except that of Left's "evolution"

If that's your definition of "evolution", then Stalin's Soviet Union must have been the most evolved place on the planet!

P.S. You're the Buddhist around here, right? So how can you, in good conscience, advocate a philosophy of persecuting religious expression in public when the Communists did just that to your fellow Buddhists in Tibet?
 
sagegirl said:
If it wasn't for the LIBERALS who fought to the death, and founded our country......the sheep would be paying their respects to the Queen.
The LIBERALS that you are referring to were liberals in the classic sense. They believed in limited government, the free exercise of religious expression, the blessings of free enterprise.....

And those LIBERALS believed in fighting wars for the cause of freedom (unlike you and your ilk)

You and your fellow LIBERALS are neo-commuists, whether you like to hear it or not. You've been indoctrinated in socialist double think, double speak and don't even know it.

Any similarity between today's LIBERALS and the LIBERALS of the 18th century is in name only.
 
Bullypulpit said:
The "Decline of Western Civilization"...? Hardly...The evolution of Western Civilization, most certainly!

So Bully, given your stance, I'm sure that if the Supreme Court's position regarding abortion and privacy "evolved" into one which allowed the government to outlaw abortion, that would be great with you, right? After all, society has progressed so much since 1973! They didn't even have the Internet!
 
KarlMarx said:
I see, you call the slaughter of 40 million babies at the hands of their mothers "evolution"

Define "baby".

KarlMarx said:
You call the persecution of Christians and other religious groups by the judiciary and the Left "evolution"

80+% of Democrats self-identify as Christian; 95+% of Democrats are religious persons.

KarlMarx said:
You call the trampling of the right of free speech on most college campuses and intolerance of any viewpoint except that of Left's "evolution"

Free speech isn't trampled on college campuses, it is supported and defended.

KarlMarx said:
P.S. You're the Buddhist around here, right? So how can you, in good conscience, advocate a philosophy of persecuting religious expression in public when the Communists did just that to your fellow Buddhists in Tibet?

Buddhism isn't a religion, per se.
 
nakedemperor said:
Define "baby".
1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group....

as in the term "premature infant" ---- a baby that is born before 9 months of gestation is completed....


80+% of Democrats self-identify as Christian; 95+% of Democrats are religious persons.
and????? what does that have to do with the judiciary's decisions regarding the freedom of religious expression in public?

If you're going to start about the "separation of church and state" horse manure, please spare us. Fact --- there is no such clause in the first amendment. That was an invention of Justice Hugo Black's (Everson vs. Board of Education - 1947). In that decision, Hugo Black (a former member of the KKK, by the way), cited a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, which used that phrase.


Free speech isn't trampled on college campuses, it is supported and defended.
Yes, and pigs can fly, too

http://www.academicbias.com/bw101-wmv.html


Buddhism isn't a religion, per se.
Oh, OK then, so by your implication it isn't REALLY persecution.....

http://www.tibet.ca/pub/persecution.htm
 
gop_jeff said:
So Bully, given your stance, I'm sure that if the Supreme Court's position regarding abortion and privacy "evolved" into one which allowed the government to outlaw abortion, that would be great with you, right? After all, society has progressed so much since 1973! They didn't even have the Internet!
Let's not forget that medical treatment has evolved a great deal since 1973, too. Many more babies that are now born prematurely survive than did in 1973, thus making them "persons" by any stretch of the imagination.....

Oh, and let's not forget the "coat hangar" abortion myth which was used as an argument for legal abortion..... but, it didn't happen. There is no case that I have been able to find using a Google search of such a thing taking place. Even so, if it did happen, a woman who would do such a thing to herself doesn't need legalized abortion, she needs to be confined to a psychiatric ward, instead.
 
If and when we come to an agreed upon understanding of the authors' original intent, will it be necessary that we interpret the constitution based upon original intent? Should not judges take modern circumstances, technology, and understanding into consideration when attempting to interpret and apply the Constitution to specific and unique situations?

I doubt that the founding fathers ever imagined that our "guns" could be as advanced as they are today. I doubt that they thought that some people's religion would call on the faithful to refuse blood transfusions.

How can judges use "original intent" as a criteria for interpreting the Constitution when so many of today's marvels and understandings were unlikely considered years ago?!? Thankfully, much of the Constitution is vague and can be interpreted in various ways. Also, the founding fathers included ways in which the Constitution may be changed and amended.
 
Cal has very active and vocal Young Republican and Conservative Christian groups. I know for a fact that the Republican group is vocal. They were all heckling the speech I made on campus during 2004 campaign. :thanks:
 
Gabriella84 said:
Cal has very active and vocal Young Republican and Conservative Christian groups. I know for a fact that the Republican group is vocal. They were all heckling the speech I made on campus during 2004 campaign. :thanks:

WOW--you're a pro ???????? :rock:
 

Forum List

Back
Top