Practical Application of "Original Intent"

[jwoodie]

Much of the discussion about SCOTUS issues revolves around terminology and labels rather than underlying principles. For example, "Original Intent" seems to suggest that the framers of the Constitution had already anticipated every issue that might arise 200 years hence, while a "Living Document" seems to legitimize judicial revision as a substitute for the Amendment process.

I think that the proper role for SCOTUS is to interpret the actual wording of the Constitution and to add language only where it is vague as to current application. For example, this would allow the Court to decide the extent to which modern telecommunications constitute free speech, but would not allow it to create previously unspecified rights for individuals or the federal government. In other words, we should give great deference to Constitutional principles, but not be tightly bound by vague or archaic language.

What say you?

 

[Moonglow]

At least they don't use F's for S's anymore...

 

[KokomoJojo]

Much of the discussion about SCOTUS issues revolves around terminology and labels rather than underlying principles. For example, "Original Intent" seems to suggest that the framers of the Constitution had already anticipated every issue that might arise 200 years hence, while a "Living Document" seems to legitimize judicial revision as a substitute for the Amendment process.

I think that the proper role for SCOTUS is to interpret the actual wording of the Constitution and to add language only where it is vague as to current application. For example, this would allow the Court to decide the extent to which modern telecommunications constitute free speech, but would not allow it to create previously unspecified rights for individuals or the federal government. In other words, we should give great deference to Constitutional principles, but not be tightly bound by vague or archaic language.

What say you?

who needs people when we have the courts to decide.

original intent does not mean what you said. every issue can be reduced to its lowest common denominator, the framers dealt in lowest common denominators not huff puff and fluff like 'living document' crap being pushed now days.

Yeh its living its amendmendable.

 

[DGS49]

It is not the role of the USSC to "add language" or to create new concepts that the Members think should have been in there before.

The two most important things the Court does are (1) interpret the laws and apply the Constitution to make sure they are not violating it, and (2) to decline to intercede where the Constitution gives them no right to intercede.

Case in point: There is no right to "privacy" in the Constitution. But a majority of the Court thought it should be in there, so they decided to pretend that it was. And the problem with this approach is that once an undefinable "right" was created, then the Court could expand that right to include anything that the Court wanted it to include. Abortions are "private" behavior, therefore the State cannot prevent a woman from getting an abortion. Abortion had been illegal for 2 hundred years, and yet the Court decided that for the whole 200 years, we were government by laws that were "unconstitutional."

It is nonsense, on steroids.

The uneducated masses have no problem with the court doing such things because THEY AGREE WITH THE POLITICAL ACTIONS that come out of this non-existent right. The fact that the Court is not authorized by the Constitution to act this way is an inconvenience.

This is who no democrat should ever be president.

 

[KokomoJojo]

It is not the role of the USSC to "add language" or to create new concepts that the Members think should have been in there before.

The two most important things the Court does are (1) interpret the laws and apply the Constitution to make sure they are not violating it, and (2) to decline to intercede where the Constitution gives them no right to intercede.

Case in point: There is no right to "privacy" in the Constitution. But a majority of the Court thought it should be in there, so they decided to pretend that it was. And the problem with this approach is that once an undefinable "right" was created, then the Court could expand that right to include anything that the Court wanted it to include. Abortions are "private" behavior, therefore the State cannot prevent a woman from getting an abortion. Abortion had been illegal for 2 hundred years, and yet the Court decided that for the whole 200 years, we were government by laws that were "unconstitutional."

It is nonsense, on steroids.

The uneducated masses have no problem with the court doing such things because THEY AGREE WITH THE POLITICAL ACTIONS that come out of this non-existent right. The fact that the Court is not authorized by the Constitution to act this way is an inconvenience.

This is who no democrat should ever be president.

privacy is the reason for the 4th.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation


What is under your coat is private, what is in your car is private where you go and who you visit is private.

All these cams on every corner is a violation of your privacy as they can track your every movement with out probable cause.

 

[DGS49]

"Privacy" (a word not used in the Constitution) is basically the "right" not to eavesdropped upon BY THE GOVERNMENT. The GOVERNMENT cannot search you unless you are rightly being arrested, or unless the GOVERNMENT AGENT has probably cause to believe that you are holding contraband. Same for your car and your house.

But the Court has rightly observed that "privacy" does not include aspects of your life that are easily visible or notable or searchable without restriction. For example, your garbage. You throw it out, and ANYONE, including AGENTS OF GOVERNMENT can examine it for whatever purpose they deem appropriate. Also, if something is plainly visible from outside, then you have chosen not to protect it as private, and thus a remote camera peering into your house, or recording events in the street, or watching you play poker, is fair game.

But it was the Supreme Court that expanded the concept of "privacy" beyond eavesdropping, and expanded it to include behavior that was done in private. For example, the Government was held not to have the right to criminalize taking birth control pills. Because of the non-existent "Right to Privacy." And that was expanded later to cover private homosexual activity, and even getting an abortion.

But those rights are, like the Book of Mormon, built on sand.

 

[KokomoJojo]

'[fire]'arms or 'guns' was not used in the constitution either, does that mean they are anything other than an arm?

If russia had cams all over this country so they could monitor people here would the courts consider that spying on the american people and a danger to the society?

Why yes they would!

Seems pretty reasonable that the gubmint is spying on the american people at large.

Either that or we have a cunumdrum that you need to sort out for us.