The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism, Why Should We?

[koshergrl]

Damn our constitutional rights!

What do historians make of originalism? Jack Rakove, the Stanford historian and one of the foremost experts on the revolutionary era, argues that there wasn’t just one meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written and then ratified, but rather the founders had disagreements among themselves over its meaning.

He points to the great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, who wrote that “historians can never forget that it is a debate they are interpreting.”

The inability to recognize the extent to which the Founding Fathers argued among themselves is a major flaw in the conservative case for originalism since it is dependent on the theory that people in the 18th century shared a common interpretation of the Constitution.

In fact, they did not, as one of the earliest debates over the meaning of the Constitution shows.

The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism—Why Should We?

We are talking the guys that were traitors to the crown, they didn't want to pay the establishment their fair share of the cost fighting the French (BOOO). The same blighters that said: all men are created equal. And owned slaves. Our founding fathers paved the way for a neurosis that lasted until 1865. Yay!

Wth

So you have a problem both with the idea of men being equal, and slave ownership?

 

[koshergrl]

Leftists are just straight up crazy.

Thank goodness the world is coming to its senses.

 

[MaryL]

Leftists are just straight up crazy.

Thank goodness the world is coming to its senses.

I am so left, I came back around to the right, I voted for Trump. Can we do away with labels?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Leftists are just straight up crazy.

Thank goodness the world is coming to its senses.

I am so left, I came back around to the right, I voted for Trump. Can we do away with labels?

Great.....

We need you !!!

 

[koshergrl]

Leftists are just straight up crazy.

Thank goodness the world is coming to its senses.

I am so left, I came back around to the right, I voted for Trump. Can we do away with labels?

So do you disagree with the idea that all men are created equal..or do you disagree with slavery?

I don't know I think you're just crazy. I am glad you voted for Trump but ....

 

[MaryL]

Leftists are just straight up crazy.

Thank goodness the world is coming to its senses.

I am so left, I came back around to the right, I voted for Trump. Can we do away with labels?

So do you disagree with the idea that all men are created equal..or do you disagree with slavery?

I don't know I think you're just crazy. I am glad you voted for Trump but ....

I am glad you deem it KOSHER, girl.

 

[7vices]

Here's the funny part ... the court will be conservative in its interpretations for the next 40 years.

Flint may have drinkable water by then.

I wouldn't drink it.

So much for unalienable rights. It won't be long before we have to pay for air.

I'll sell you some of mine ... but no third-party checks.

Send cash. I'll take my chances with the free air that is left.

 

[westwall]

Here's the funny part ... the court will be conservative in its interpretations for the next 40 years.

Flint may have drinkable water by then.

I wouldn't drink it.

So much for unalienable rights. It won't be long before we have to pay for air.

You mean like how the progressives are trying to charge us for the CO2 we all exhale? One thousand pounds a year for the average human. Never forget that.

 

[Kosh]

Once again another thread showing the far left does not care about actual history, only the history their religious leaders write for them..

 

[koshergrl]

Here's the funny part ... the court will be conservative in its interpretations for the next 40 years.

Flint may have drinkable water by then.

I wouldn't drink it.

So much for unalienable rights. It won't be long before we have to pay for air.

You mean like how the progressives are trying to charge us for the CO2 we all exhale? One thousand pounds a year for the average human. Never forget that.

Let's charge them for the forest fires their dumbass public land managers are responsible for...

 

[bendog]

Damn our constitutional rights!

You didn't read the text, or could even understand what you were reading if you did huh?

Actual historical fact. And it flew right over your head.

Hey Gramps. Going through life wilfully ignorant is no way to go out.

Grandpa read analyzed and collated the article in four minutes.

 

[Doc1]

Damn our constitutional rights!

You didn't read the text, or could even understand what you were reading if you did huh?

Actual historical fact. And it flew right over your head.

Hey Gramps. Going through life wilfully ignorant is no way to go out.

Here you go again, looking stupid. There is a reason that the Federalist Papers were written. I have come to understand that you are patently stupid, but this is even over the top for you.

 

[Doc1]

skewsy didn't even read his own source, it does not argue definitively the way he says it does

 

[bendog]

the federalist papers are not heaven sent, and not terribly useful in showing an individual right to gun ownership independent from the militia clause, so be careful what you wish for.

Scalia's own use of originalism is criticized for self-contradiction. Did all racial discrimination become illegal with the adoption of the 14th amendment?

But the intent of the people who voted to ratify the constitution, not just the drafters and political elite, seems the place to start, imo.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Here's the funny part ... the court will be conservative in its interpretations for the next 40 years.

Think so?

So you can see into the future?

This country won't even be a majority white in another 30.

But changes are coming sooner than that.

tic toc

Hey dumbass! Mexicans are white!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Damn our constitutional rights!

You didn't read the text, or could even understand what you were reading if you did huh?

Actual historical fact. And it flew right over your head.

Hey Gramps. Going through life wilfully ignorant is no way to go out.

Grandpa read analyzed and collated the article in four minutes.

I skimmed it and considered the source, then realized who the op was.

Nuff said

 

[Doc1]

the federalist papers are not heaven sent, and not terribly useful in showing an individual right to gun ownership independent from the militia clause, so be careful what you wish for.

Scalia's own use of originalism is criticized for self-contradiction. Did all racial discrimination become illegal with the adoption of the 14th amendment?

But the intent of the people who voted to ratify the constitution, not just the drafters and political elite, seems the place to start, imo.

Sorry but they are very useful to those without an agenda.

 

[norwegen]

the federalist papers are not heaven sent, and not terribly useful in showing an individual right to gun ownership independent from the militia clause, so be careful what you wish for.

Scalia's own use of originalism is criticized for self-contradiction. Did all racial discrimination become illegal with the adoption of the 14th amendment?

But the intent of the people who voted to ratify the constitution, not just the drafters and political elite, seems the place to start, imo.

Sorry but they are very useful to those without an agenda.

The Federalist Papers, in fact, were written by the very party that drafted the Constitution. They explain the Constitution in the context of American history and the spirit of the Revolution.

To say that the Constitution has no historical precedent or social and political reference is just plain naive.

 

[Doc1]

the federalist papers are not heaven sent, and not terribly useful in showing an individual right to gun ownership independent from the militia clause, so be careful what you wish for.

Scalia's own use of originalism is criticized for self-contradiction. Did all racial discrimination become illegal with the adoption of the 14th amendment?

But the intent of the people who voted to ratify the constitution, not just the drafters and political elite, seems the place to start, imo.

Sorry but they are very useful to those without an agenda.

The Federalist Papers, in fact, were written by the very party that drafted the Constitution. They explain the Constitution in the context of American history and the spirit of the Revolution.

To say that the Constitution has no historical precedent or social and political reference is just plain naive.

It's not naive at all, it's a deliberate attempt to change the rules about anything the Progressives can't get through Legislatively.

 

[norwegen]

the federalist papers are not heaven sent, and not terribly useful in showing an individual right to gun ownership independent from the militia clause, so be careful what you wish for.

Scalia's own use of originalism is criticized for self-contradiction. Did all racial discrimination become illegal with the adoption of the 14th amendment?

But the intent of the people who voted to ratify the constitution, not just the drafters and political elite, seems the place to start, imo.

Sorry but they are very useful to those without an agenda.

The Federalist Papers, in fact, were written by the very party that drafted the Constitution. They explain the Constitution in the context of American history and the spirit of the Revolution.

To say that the Constitution has no historical precedent or social and political reference is just plain naive.

It's not naive at all, it's a deliberate attempt to change the rules about anything the Progressives can't get through Legislatively.

That's true, too.