The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism, Why Should We?

[JakeStarkey]

That is why Organic Theory is sound, bendog.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our federal Constitution was, intelligently designed, to be Both, gender and race neutral, from Inception.

Disagree. It was a document for white men with property.

right wing Intelligence?

They Wrote the federal doctrine, after the Declaration of Independence.

They had to work with what they had at the time.

The constitution was written to preserve the wealth of the elite. Jefferson believed in the self-government of the educated and property (slave) owning white male.

Jacksonian democracy broadened the message to the ill educated and laboring classes ... of white males.

Incorrect. Jefferson had no part in drafting the Constitution.

Well, the Jacksonian Democracy part is right, I guess. It's the party that embraced the ignorant vote.

Jefferson certainly did correspond with Madison on principles of government, and Jefferson certainly opposed a strong national government theory.

 

[Edgetho]

They didn't have some requirement to limit the vote to the minority of property owners. They believed that only the educated and moneyed should vote. Both Adams and Jefferson thought that. So did Washington.

So did Greece. So did Rome.

The French did not. The French Revolution is where everything changed.

And they got it wrong.

Even the Lying Cocksucker in Chief said you need to have some skin in the game.

Most dimocrap scum do not. Most of them are social parasites in one form or another.

I'm talking goobermint workers, lawyers, teachers, et al

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, this is an amusing thread.

Now, disagreements with the final outcome of the Constitution is the same as some of the founding fathers not understanding the language in the document.


Seems a bit of a contradiction.

They disagreed with each other because the absolutely understood the original intent of the language.

Too damn funny.

The Constitution was the result of a lot of compromises between different ideas and visions. As with any compromise, no one is ever going to be entirely happy with the result. That doesn't invalidate the compromise itself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

One thing we know is that it doesn't mean what modern liberals say it means. They don't even care what it says.

They usually don't even KNOW what it says.

 

[bendog]

Our federal Constitution was, intelligently designed, to be Both, gender and race neutral, from Inception.

Disagree. It was a document for white men with property.

right wing Intelligence?

They Wrote the federal doctrine, after the Declaration of Independence.

They had to work with what they had at the time.

The constitution was written to preserve the wealth of the elite. Jefferson believed in the self-government of the educated and property (slave) owning white male.

Jacksonian democracy broadened the message to the ill educated and laboring classes ... of white males.

Incorrect. Jefferson had no part in drafting the Constitution.

Well, the Jacksonian Democracy part is right, I guess. It's the party that embraced the ignorant vote.

Jefferson certainly did correspond with Madison on principles of government, and Jefferson certainly opposed a strong national government theory.

I don't know of any of the founders who believed in voting for the unlanded. Certainly not Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison or ..... I think Adams ... and he was the principled drafter of Mass's constitution, which served as a model.

It's largely irrelevant except for the fact that to those who view originalism as the means to all ends of preventing just finding new rights willy nillly really have no concept of what they actually wish for.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

One thing we know is that it doesn't mean what modern liberals say it means. They don't even care what it says.

They usually don't even KNOW what it says.

And the ones who do use what they know only to spin and confound the issues.

 

[danielpalos]

They didn't have some requirement to limit the vote to the minority of property owners. They believed that only the educated and moneyed should vote. Both Adams and Jefferson thought that. So did Washington.

So did Greece. So did Rome.

The French did not. The French Revolution is where everything changed.

And they got it wrong.

Even the Lying Cocksucker in Chief said you need to have some skin in the game.

Most dimocrap scum do not. Most of them are social parasites in one form or another.

I'm talking goobermint workers, lawyers, teachers, et al

what skin is that, homey? us debt means even the poor get to help pay for it.

 

[Edgetho]

The Federalist Papers - Wikipedia

 

[Edgetho]

what skin is that, homey? us debt means even the poor get to help pay for it.

^^Gets political guidance from Comedy Central^^

 

[danielpalos]

The Federalist Papers - Wikipedia

you point and argument? anyone can copy and paste a link.

 

[danielpalos]

what skin is that, homey? us debt means even the poor get to help pay for it.

^^Gets political guidance from Comedy Central^^

get their arguments from right wing, "intelligence". ^^

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hispanics are a mixture (of varying degrees) of the European Spaniards and the indigenous peoples of North and South America.

They identify differently from Caucasian ... although they are sometimes difficult to tell apart.

Racially, they are Caucasian.

Racially, they're a hybrid. The aboriginal people of the Americas certainly were not Caucasian.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far and alt right of their day were what Washington and Jefferson and Adams and the founders were worried about.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing is merely clueless and Causeless, and blame everyone but themselves.

 

[longknife]

You can read some interesting and educational posts on the
Anthony Gaughan on Judge Kavanaugh and OriginalismMichael Ramsey - The Originalism Blog

 

[Doc1]

Disagree. It was a document for white men with property.

right wing Intelligence?

They Wrote the federal doctrine, after the Declaration of Independence.

They had to work with what they had at the time.

The constitution was written to preserve the wealth of the elite. Jefferson believed in the self-government of the educated and property (slave) owning white male.

Jacksonian democracy broadened the message to the ill educated and laboring classes ... of white males.

Incorrect. Jefferson had no part in drafting the Constitution.

Well, the Jacksonian Democracy part is right, I guess. It's the party that embraced the ignorant vote.

Jefferson certainly did correspond with Madison on principles of government, and Jefferson certainly opposed a strong national government theory.

I don't know of any of the founders who believed in voting for the unlanded. Certainly not Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison or ..... I think Adams ... and he was the principled drafter of Mass's constitution, which served as a model.

It's largely irrelevant except for the fact that to those who view originalism as the means to all ends of preventing just finding new rights willy nillly really have no concept of what they actually wish for.

Of course we do. Your blanket statement is silly on it's face. Fact, the Left NEEDS the idea of a "Living Document". Rightly implemented the Constitution indeed stands in the way of their agenda. Take the election, Hillary LOST because of the Constitution, what happened? The Left began crying for the rules to be changed to the "popular vote".

 

[mikegriffith1]

The OP's author clearly has done no serious research on the founding fathers. The framers agreed on a broad range of issues. Even the flaming nationalist James Madison vetoed a bill for federal public works when he was president, and Madison was one of the the framers who wanted a much stronger national government than most of the other framers wanted.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.

Inferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the Majority

Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.

 

[bripat9643]

America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.

Inferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the Majority

Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.

"Self appointed supremecy document?" Could you possibly any more of an America hating douchebag?