The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism, Why Should We?

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

What does skin color have to do with anything?

 

[Doc1]

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

What does skin color have to do with anything?

He is a guilt ridden white man who is depressed about his privilege.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

What does skin color have to do with anything?

He is a guilt ridden white man who is depressed about his privilege.

Oh, well, that sucks.

 

[bendog]

the federalist papers are not heaven sent, and not terribly useful in showing an individual right to gun ownership independent from the militia clause, so be careful what you wish for.

Scalia's own use of originalism is criticized for self-contradiction. Did all racial discrimination become illegal with the adoption of the 14th amendment?

But the intent of the people who voted to ratify the constitution, not just the drafters and political elite, seems the place to start, imo.

Sorry but they are very useful to those without an agenda.

All means of interpretation are useful for an agenda.

In truth, as with all of the following interpretations, most people use originalism when it suits them. Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance your point of view. https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

Personally I lean towards historical literalism, but it is less important what a few elitists said the words meant than what the words meant to the people who ratified the constitution

 

[g5000]

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.

 

[hazlnut]

Damn our constitutional rights!

Did you even bother to read it?

 

[bendog]

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.

Well, it's true that often those crying for originalism don't really understand what they're calling for or the ramifications. Scalia was closely associated with the 4th amendment right to privacy. Once you get to the internet, there's not much basis for expecting privacy.

Damn our constitutional rights!

Did you even bother to read it?

evlyn weds sped reddin

 

[fncceo]

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

Hey dumbass! Mexicans are white!

Not the hot ones ...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Correct.

Originalism is in direct conflict with the most fundamentals tenets of the Anglo-American judicial tradition: precedent, the rule of law, and the interpretive authority of the courts.

Indeed, originalism is inconsistent with Article III and Article VI of the Constitution, where it was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers and Founding Generation that the Supreme Court would determine what the Constitution means, that Supreme Court rulings would be the law of the land, and that those rulings would be binding on the states and local jurisdictions.

To paraphrase Justice Kennedy in Lawrence, the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive understanding of all the manifestations of liberty; the principles codified in the Constitution afford citizens the means by which to discover the fullness of our liberties, and the ability to express our freedoms to their utmost extent – originalism is clearly hostile to the realization of both.

 

[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?

Correct.

Originalism is in direct conflict with the most fundamentals tenets of the Anglo-American judicial tradition: precedent, the rule of law, and the interpretive authority of the courts.

Indeed, originalism is inconsistent with Article III and Article VI of the Constitution, where it was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers and Founding Generation that the Supreme Court would determine what the Constitution means, that Supreme Court rulings would be the law of the land, and that those rulings would be binding on the states and local jurisdictions.

To paraphrase Justice Kennedy in Lawrence, the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive understanding of all the manifestations of liberty; the principles codified in the Constitution afford citizens the means by which to discover the fullness of our liberties, and the ability to express our freedoms to their utmost extent – originalism is clearly hostile to the realization of both.

The right wing doesn't seem to know that means. Just gibberish, to them.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Anyone who considers Marshall a great justice is delusional. And the court in NOT interpreting the debate, they are interpreting the written conclusion of the debate, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The law the States accepted and ratified.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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

You don't know that, there are 3 elder conservative judges on the court now, they won't last another 40 years.


.

 

[Doc1]

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.

Nobody gives a **** about what you say.

 

[EGR one]

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 you do not recognize original ism, what do you recognize? The other option is to cede to nine unelected lawyers the power to decide what our most basic law is.

BTW, original ism is not attempting to determine what the intent was when the Constitution was written, but what the words meant when the Constitution was written.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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?

Foolish tard:

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

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Correct.

Originalism is in direct conflict with the most fundamentals tenets of the Anglo-American judicial tradition: precedent, the rule of law, and the interpretive authority of the courts.

Indeed, originalism is inconsistent with Article III and Article VI of the Constitution, where it was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers and Founding Generation that the Supreme Court would determine what the Constitution means, that Supreme Court rulings would be the law of the land, and that those rulings would be binding on the states and local jurisdictions.

To paraphrase Justice Kennedy in Lawrence, the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive understanding of all the manifestations of liberty; the principles codified in the Constitution afford citizens the means by which to discover the fullness of our liberties, and the ability to express our freedoms to their utmost extent – originalism is clearly hostile to the realization of both.

Funny, I think Kennedy's opinion comports fully with the 9th Amendment. So originalism is not hostel to either.


.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Hey dumbass! Mexicans are white!

Not the hot ones ...

Is she black?

Is she Asian?

If not, she is white.

 

[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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are not going to bring the type of "conservatism" the far right wants.

 

[Thinker101]

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are not going to bring the type of "conservatism" the far right wants.

No kidding, what kind are they bringing?