The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism, Why Should We?

[skews13]

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?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Damn our constitutional rights!

 

[MarathonMike]

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

 

[skews13]

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.

 

[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.

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

I'm also not interested in your stupid labels.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

This may help

 

[fncceo]

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

 

[skews13]

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.

 

[Correll]

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?

Do you believe that our Rights are inherent, or granted by some government or document?

 

[skews13]

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

 

[fncceo]

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?

It's telling that you chose that particular painting to represent your interpretation of the events.

That painting itself is revisionist history. No plenary assembly of the Continental Congress took place as they painting suggested. It took weeks for all the signatories of the Declaration of Independence to sign the document as they were not even in same room together over that summer of 1776.

George Washington isn't even a signatory of the Declaration.

 

[fncceo]

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

If you think white equals conservative and non-white equals liberal you're the blindest one in this room.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ha. Good old Jack. I don't often see anyone reference him, so points to the op.

Take Jack's thoughts on our nation's history with a grain of salt. He's a Hamiltonian and this is clearly reflected in his works if anyone has ever read them. Jack offers his perspective of history Not necessarily history itself. Just how he perceives it.

Good reads, though, if one is simply interested in perspective alone. Jack's is rather fringe and geared more toward translating history in a way that aligns with how he would rather see our government function.

 

[whitehall]

Is this a joke? There was no Constitution or Bill of Rights when the Founding Fathers risked their lives and fortunes to create a new Country. The FF in their profound wisdom established a Supreme Court to deal with Constitutional issues and disputes among states. Why does the left have such a problem with that?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

 

[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?

Yes, they argued and debated, then they signed it into law with mandated processes with which it could be adjusted.

Follow the process, and there's no problem.

 

[JWBooth]

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

If by conservative you mean steadfast in reaffirming the power of the executive and unquestioning growth in the powers of the state, then yep, the most conservative court in the past hundred years.

 

[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.

 

[night_son]

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?

Arguing semantics of the foundation has found us up to our noses in pleasant smelling historical waters, now hasn't it? I question the motivation behind attempts to reassign our Founders' intent and to change history. So should all Americans. Constitutional Relativism will not save the America of our Founders, nor our modern one.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

They put the federal doctrine, in writing.