The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism, Why Should We?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

 

[fncceo]

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.

Since race is fundamentally a social construct, the argument is academic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Race remains a social construct, and as such Hispanics do not generally see themselves as other Caucasians.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Since race is fundamentally a social construct, the argument is academic.

I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. It's biology, not a social construct.

 

[danielpalos]

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

 

[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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

I'm not the idiot hoping to redefine our constitution.

I'm also not interested in your stupid labels.

You're certainly not interested in history.

I am.

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[80zephyr]

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?

I have often pointed out on this forum that our Founders were not monolithic in their thinking.

It's funny how that sails right over the heads of pseudocons in topics about nullification and secession.

Right from the beginning, our Founders disagreed over what was allowed by the Constitution and what was not.

And? Since they actually drafted and passed the Constitution, they settled on which side of the debate won.

Mark

 

[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.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

yeah we should be able to just do what we want. No reason to follow anything in the constitution........just make it up as we go.......yeah that's a great plan.

 

[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.

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.

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.

"Originalism" develops from Right Wing intelligence, imo.

A small minority of Founders, Jefferson and Madison, opposed an Organic interpretation of evolving case law and SCOTUS interpretation.

Most Founders came to support an Organic approach to the Constitution.

Legal scholars and lawyers overwhelming support an Organic approach today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And we see that strain of anti-intellectualism in the white laboring classes to this day when it comes to the Constitution.

That is to whom Trump plays. Witness obucky's comment above.

 

[bendog]

And we see that strain of anti-intellectualism in the white laboring classes to this day when it comes to the Constitution.

That is to whom Trump plays. Witness obucky's comment above.

Most of the Trump supporters would be those left out by strict originalism.

It wasn't until 1830 thereabouts than poor voters outstripped the moneyed.

And that's not to say originalism doesn't work for some issues. Even with the internet, it may be very important to 4th amendment privacy.

 

[bendog]

And we see that strain of anti-intellectualism in the white laboring classes to this day when it comes to the Constitution.

That is to whom Trump plays. Witness obucky's comment above.

Well, there's anti-intellectualism all around.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That was what they had to work with; what they Wrote, was something else, from Inception.

 

[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.

That was what they had to work with; what they Wrote, was something else, from Inception.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"The Founders debated about the Constitution! That means the words they actually put on paper are meaningless!"

And people wonder why the left is gaining the reputation of mindless hysteria.

 

[norwegen]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That was what they had to work with; what they Wrote, was something else, from Inception.

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.

Only "the rich" could read and write. That was what they had to work with; when organizing our society and the affirmative action of the franchise.