1.This may come as a shock to government school grads, but the United States Constitution is written in English.
Now, according to Progressives, this is a draw-back, as they would like the Supreme Court Justices that they manage to infect the Court with, to be imagined as the Wizard of Oz, hidden behind the curtain, and only they have the power to discern what the Constitution says…and means. That’s why they inject the loaded term ‘interpret.’
But, I imagine, government school grads regularly used the idea that their own textbooks needed ‘interpretation.’
2. Progressive writer Thom Hartmann advances that concept....here: “… textualist justices pretend to divine the meaning of words in the Constitution by reading dictionaries from the 1700s. As Scalia told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “Originalism is sort of a subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you are governed by the text. That’s the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that.” But there’s no single meaning to terms that appear in the Constitution…” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,”p.36-37. Thom Hartmann
Get that? The words don’t mean anything until Progressives make up their meaning.
For Progressives, they need to juggle, twist, and manipulate the Constitution until they get the outcome they wish.
That’s how Liberals find special ‘rights’ in penumbras and shadows.
3. Justice Scalia explained it this way:
“Chris WALLACE: You -- in your book, you explain your approach to judging, which is called textualism or originalism. What exactly is that?
SCALIA: Originalism is sort of subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that. But the text of the statute.
Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning. So --
WALLACE: So, if it was the Constitution written in the 18th century, you try to find what those words meant in the 18th century.
SCALIA: Exactly, the best example being the death penalty. I've sat with three colleagues who thought it was unconstitutional, but it's absolutely clear that the American people never voted to proscribe the death penalty. They adopted a cruel and unusual punishment clause at the time when every state had the death penalty and every state continued to have it. Nobody thought that the Eighth Amendment prohibited it.” Interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia | RealClearPolitics
4. Having been written two and have centuries ago is not a problem.
For Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, reliance on the written text of the Constitution, explains how the Constitution is to be used.
Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as for suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
And no decisions not tied directly to the Constitution!
Today, the the Supreme Court feels it can provide the answer to every issue.
It was not meant to be this way.
Today, there are no issues that judges admit to being ‘above their pay grade.’
They simply use their own biases and views as though they were issued by the ratifiers of the Constitution.
But, of course, that’s not the aim of Liberals who manage to get on the Court: they aim to simply substitute their views for the Founders’ views.
Now, according to Progressives, this is a draw-back, as they would like the Supreme Court Justices that they manage to infect the Court with, to be imagined as the Wizard of Oz, hidden behind the curtain, and only they have the power to discern what the Constitution says…and means. That’s why they inject the loaded term ‘interpret.’
But, I imagine, government school grads regularly used the idea that their own textbooks needed ‘interpretation.’
2. Progressive writer Thom Hartmann advances that concept....here: “… textualist justices pretend to divine the meaning of words in the Constitution by reading dictionaries from the 1700s. As Scalia told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “Originalism is sort of a subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you are governed by the text. That’s the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that.” But there’s no single meaning to terms that appear in the Constitution…” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,”p.36-37. Thom Hartmann
Get that? The words don’t mean anything until Progressives make up their meaning.
For Progressives, they need to juggle, twist, and manipulate the Constitution until they get the outcome they wish.
That’s how Liberals find special ‘rights’ in penumbras and shadows.
3. Justice Scalia explained it this way:
“Chris WALLACE: You -- in your book, you explain your approach to judging, which is called textualism or originalism. What exactly is that?
SCALIA: Originalism is sort of subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that. But the text of the statute.
Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning. So --
WALLACE: So, if it was the Constitution written in the 18th century, you try to find what those words meant in the 18th century.
SCALIA: Exactly, the best example being the death penalty. I've sat with three colleagues who thought it was unconstitutional, but it's absolutely clear that the American people never voted to proscribe the death penalty. They adopted a cruel and unusual punishment clause at the time when every state had the death penalty and every state continued to have it. Nobody thought that the Eighth Amendment prohibited it.” Interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia | RealClearPolitics
4. Having been written two and have centuries ago is not a problem.
For Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, reliance on the written text of the Constitution, explains how the Constitution is to be used.
Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as for suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
And no decisions not tied directly to the Constitution!
Today, the the Supreme Court feels it can provide the answer to every issue.
It was not meant to be this way.
Today, there are no issues that judges admit to being ‘above their pay grade.’
They simply use their own biases and views as though they were issued by the ratifiers of the Constitution.
But, of course, that’s not the aim of Liberals who manage to get on the Court: they aim to simply substitute their views for the Founders’ views.
Last edited: