The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism, Why Should We?

[Missouri_Mike]

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?

If that were true why did it take about 150 years to start to not look to the Constitution for guidance? This living document shit only started with Wilson.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[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.

You're certainly not interested in history.

Probably know far more history than you do. I just don't obsess over the political aspects of it and certainly don't confine my knowledge to the last couple hundred years. I dig deep into ancient history and am a firm believer that our school textbooks are mostly bogus interpretations based on narrow views.

 

[night_son]

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

Yes. Changes incoming. Changes to end what horror the radical Left has going on six decades forced on their fellow Americans. The ancient cycle turns, the radical reality escapists double down on madness over on the far Left, and the end of the cultural revolution approaches. Just remember, no sane, patriotic, God fearing American asked for the incoming brutal snap back to American tradition--they voted for it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Kind of amazing these left wing nuts think the Constitution and it’s founders would be for socialism today. When in reality they made the Constitution the exact opposite for a reason. Why would any of the founders think what they signed for us in 1781 would not apply today? Are dictators, kings and socialism any less productive in 2018 vs 1776?

 

[Indeependent]

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?

Please serve your stupid with ketchup.

 

[JWBooth]

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." Lysander Spooner

 

[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?

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

right wing spam.

 

[fncceo]

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.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Washington was confronted with a major dilemma, with two of his primary advisors now at odds. The President’s mindset was that such divisions were dangerous in a republic. Hoping to find an answer, he asked Jefferson, his Secretary of State, and Edmund Randolph, the Attorney General, to provide their opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank. Both sided with Madison, in what has become known as the strict constructionist view.

Unlike today, when it is the conservative side that links together originalism with a strictly limited reading of the Constitution, in the 1790’s the liberal side held that view. Washington provided Jefferson’s opinion to Hamilton, who put forward what one of his biographers has called “the most brilliant argument for a broad interpretation of the Constitution in American political literature.” Hamilton posited that the necessary and proper clause gave Congress the means to carry out all of its ends, even if the specific power was not listed in the document. The government had the “right to employ all the means requisite, and fairly applicable to the ends of such power; and which are not precluded by restrictions & exceptions specified in the constitution.” In the 1790’s, it was the conservative side which supported a broad construction of the Constitution, unlike today. I suspect that if today’s conservatives were to read Hamilton’s defense of the Bank without knowing his authorship, they would likely conclude that the author was not an originalist.

Ultimately, Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the Bank bill. Madison would later change his mind and in the aftermath of the War of 1812, he would both propose and then sign a bill that created the Second Bank of the United States, modeled on Hamilton’s original Bank. Madison believed that precedent had settled the matter, but he also learned the importance of a national bank when the country almost bankrupted itself during the war.

Journalist and author E.J. Dionne once observed that we are a nation conceived in argument.

Emphasis on "conceived in argument", much like in these U.S. centric political forums, one initially imagines meaningful "debate" going on. Oh, everyone's gonna be polite, thoughtful, and profound as all get out. Surely light moderation with few gratuitous rules will suffice... Never mind that such fantasy has never proven possible outside of educational venues sporting crushingly rigid control, it's simply stupid on its face. The "Founders" themselves were primarily concerned with grabbing up more stuff than everyone else, exactly like Jeff Bezos is today.

Nobody cared then. Nobody cares now. We'd do something about it if we did. But exactly as Carlin said: They own you. They own me. It's a big club and we're not in it. No one in the Big Club would be caught dead wasting their time here. But oh how we insist upon believing we have some sort of power, wealth, say in what really goes on... Clowns to left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in this sardine can with youse...

 

[blackhawk]

Yes the founders had disagreements among themselves the form of government where no one has any disagreements is generally known as dictatorship.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

you sound like a racist

 

[mikegriffith1]

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 is hack liberal revisionism. Anyone who has seriously studied the founding fathers will laugh at Fraser's article. The framers were divided into two camps: those who wanted a more empowered, robust national government and those who wanted a more limited one. Madison and Hamilton were in the first camp; both were ardent nationalists at the time. Yet, even they would be aghast at the powers the federal government has assumed. Even the most flaming nationalists like Madison and Hamilton made it clear that there were clear limits to federal power and that the states retained most of the powers of government and that those powers could not be infringed upon by the federal government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

lol.

 

[whitehall]

The Bill of Rights that Americans enjoy does not exist anywhere else in the world. A generation (or more) of idiots have been taught that the Bill of Rights can be exploited while the same idiots think the Bill of Rights need not apply if their feelings are hurt. The issue only comes up when a republican is in office.

 

[baileyn45]

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.

???????

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

There is nothing in your post that proves your claim.

Originalism is simply the original text.

The founders allowed for change via the amendment process.

They were also very clear this was a government limiting document.

What they argued over was just how much it should be limited.

There was no monarchy in the U.S.. There was the powerless articles of confederation that many still held to.

So spare us the argument for big government.

It's bullshit.

 

[MaryL]

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!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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!

They did the best they could.

You think you could have done better ?

 

[koshergrl]

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

Christmas every day since election!