The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism, Why Should We?

[danielpalos]

"Self appointed supremacy document?" Could you possibly be any more of an America hating douchebag?

Constitutionazis Slurping and Drooling

An 18th Century document that empowers an oligarchy doesn't stand for America. It stands in America's way. Could you possibly be any more of a suck-up to the status quo?

we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. only lousy management stands in America's way.

We're Sinking Because No One Realizes That College Education Is a Fraud and Should Not Be Rewarded

Unions would force corporations to hire smarter and more energetic management, instead of the lazy Diploma Dumbos who turn a profit only because of low blue-collar wages. People should start on the ground floor and work their way up, not go off to a sheltered university and learn irrelevant and unrealistic Business Administration dogma. At America's most successful economy in the 1950s, only one-third of the CEOs had graduated from college.

solving simple poverty, promotes the general welfare.

So is our job to support your lazy ass? SO is our job to make sure that you actually leave the house at 5AM and that you are actually looking for gainful employment?

Shut the **** up

employment is at-will in our at-will employment States, right winger. don't believe in being, Legal to the Law, only practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate, illegals?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Americans and the SCOTUS are laughing at you.

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Americans and the SCOTUS are laughing at you.

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

 

[bripat9643]

...It's almost as though they included a process for changing the Constitution because they DIDN'T want it "changing by interpretation".

If that were true, there would be no need for a Supreme Court which settles matters of Constitutional import based upon (1) verbiage and (2) the needs of the Republic.

The latter is a bogus justification. 9 judges don't get to decide on "the needs of the Republic." That's why we have elections.

 

[bripat9643]

...Have you heard about the amendment process?

Yep.

In the case of "interpretation" is it NOT the WORDS that change.

It is the MEANING of the words.

A word (or collection of words) can be spun in multiple directions.

Spin A works for a while.

Then somebody comes along and says, well, what that really means (or can be construed to mean) is B.

If the needs of the People and the Republic evolve to embrace B rather than A, then the Supreme Court rules on whether that's legitimate, in a Constitutional framework.

If they find in favor of Spin B, then B controls, from that point forward.

Checks and balances.

Evolution.

Living, breathing Law, metaphorically speaking.

It's the way the world works.

It's the way the Founding Fathers intended our part of the world to work.

Sometimes it works in favor of Liberals.

Sometimes it works in favor of Conservatives.

But it works; it's one of the three pillars of the governance of the United States.

If you don't like it, you can always move to Russia, where their checks-and-balances may prove more to your taste.

That's exactly what the court shouldn't be doing. It's pure demagoguery.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Americans and the SCOTUS are laughing at you.

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

Wee-Wee on the People

How is it "our" Constitution, just because some pushy authority-freaks tell us we better believe it is? This is typical of how our debates our misdirected from above. We don't have to believe either interpretation of the Second Amendment; we only have to believe what our common sense tells us is either self-defense or a dangerous exaggeration of it.

It's very similar to the early Protestant idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, instead of relying on some Pope to tell him what it means. What's more, we don't even need a Constitution for that. The will of the majority must be supreme, not some easily abused power of an 18th Century document written behind closed doors. Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. Those predatory creeps don't belong in a free country.

 

[Unkotare]

.... Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. .....

And are YOU a "real man"?


If you hate America, you are of course free to leave. If you hate constitutions, the UK might be a happy landing place for you.


As for America and real Americans, we will stick with the greatest political document in the past 800 years.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Americans and the SCOTUS are laughing at you.

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

Wee-Wee on the People

How is it "our" Constitution, just because some pushy authority-freaks tell us we better believe it is? This is typical of how our debates our misdirected from above. We don't have to believe either interpretation of the Second Amendment; we only have to believe what our common sense tells us is either self-defense or a dangerous exaggeration of it.

It's very similar to the early Protestant idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, instead of relying on some Pope to tell him what it means. What's more, we don't even need a Constitution for that. The will of the majority must be supreme, not some easily abused power of an 18th Century document written behind closed doors. Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. Those predatory creeps don't belong in a free country.

Funniest thing I've read all week.

It is our Constitution because it is the national agreement. The law of the land.

The right to have it was won at gunpoint, and it would be defended at gunpoint the same as it has when threatened in the past.

 

[kaz]

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?

Your OP doesn't back up your thread title

 

[kaz]

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.

That's not true. Granted he didn't write the document itself, but he wrote letters with views from France that influenced the Constitution

 

[kaz]

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.

You were right on the first part, then for some reason you contradicted yourself and were wrong.

Yes, they believed property owners should vote. No, that did not mean only the educated and moneyed. Property owners included shopkeepers, farmers and anyone else working to build the country. Why couldn't you stop when you were right rather than continuing on and making shit up?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That's not true. Granted he didn't write the document itself, but he wrote letters with views from France that influenced the Constitution

Not that I've ever noticed. Can you cite some?

 

[kaz]

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.

That's not true. Granted he didn't write the document itself, but he wrote letters with views from France that influenced the Constitution

Not that I've ever noticed. Can you cite some?

Sure, here you go:

The Madison-Jefferson Exchange on Ratification and the Bill of Rights – Part I | Teaching American History

You don't have access to Google?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Americans and the SCOTUS are laughing at you.

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

Wee-Wee on the People

How is it "our" Constitution, just because some pushy authority-freaks tell us we better believe it is? This is typical of how our debates our misdirected from above. We don't have to believe either interpretation of the Second Amendment; we only have to believe what our common sense tells us is either self-defense or a dangerous exaggeration of it.

It's very similar to the early Protestant idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, instead of relying on some Pope to tell him what it means. What's more, we don't even need a Constitution for that. The will of the majority must be supreme, not some easily abused power of an 18th Century document written behind closed doors. Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. Those predatory creeps don't belong in a free country.

I actually understand our Constitution. You have to understand that our federal Constitution is Express not Implied.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

There are No Natural rights in our Second Amendment.

You understand nothing. You're a common variety idiot.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

Wee-Wee on the People

How is it "our" Constitution, just because some pushy authority-freaks tell us we better believe it is? This is typical of how our debates our misdirected from above. We don't have to believe either interpretation of the Second Amendment; we only have to believe what our common sense tells us is either self-defense or a dangerous exaggeration of it.

It's very similar to the early Protestant idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, instead of relying on some Pope to tell him what it means. What's more, we don't even need a Constitution for that. The will of the majority must be supreme, not some easily abused power of an 18th Century document written behind closed doors. Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. Those predatory creeps don't belong in a free country.

I actually understand our Constitution. You have to understand that our federal Constitution is Express not Implied.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

There are No Natural rights in our Second Amendment.

You understand nothing. You're a common variety idiot.

just the fake news right wing informing the public?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Americans and the SCOTUS are laughing at you.

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

Wee-Wee on the People

How is it "our" Constitution, just because some pushy authority-freaks tell us we better believe it is? This is typical of how our debates our misdirected from above. We don't have to believe either interpretation of the Second Amendment; we only have to believe what our common sense tells us is either self-defense or a dangerous exaggeration of it.

It's very similar to the early Protestant idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, instead of relying on some Pope to tell him what it means. What's more, we don't even need a Constitution for that. The will of the majority must be supreme, not some easily abused power of an 18th Century document written behind closed doors. Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. Those predatory creeps don't belong in a free country.

Have you gotten away from the orderlies again?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Americans and the SCOTUS are laughing at you.

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

Wee-Wee on the People

How is it "our" Constitution, just because some pushy authority-freaks tell us we better believe it is? This is typical of how our debates our misdirected from above. We don't have to believe either interpretation of the Second Amendment; we only have to believe what our common sense tells us is either self-defense or a dangerous exaggeration of it.

It's very similar to the early Protestant idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, instead of relying on some Pope to tell him what it means. What's more, we don't even need a Constitution for that. The will of the majority must be supreme, not some easily abused power of an 18th Century document written behind closed doors. Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. Those predatory creeps don't belong in a free country.

Funniest thing I've read all week.

It is our Constitution because it is the national agreement. The law of the land.

The right to have it was won at gunpoint, and it would be defended at gunpoint the same as it has when threatened in the past.

Desperately Hallowing "Founding Fathers" Is Characteristic of Those Who Had Inadequate Fathers

If you say so. But it's not you that is saying it; it is some programmed bot.

I thought of an analogy, but it would be wasted on someone who refuses to think for himself. Later, but only if I come across a rare independent mind on this copycat Internet. Why do you believe that supporting private-sector tyranny will benefit you? I haven't met a Constitutionazi yet who wasn't some pathetic and bossy know-it-all nobody.

 

[Contumacious]

Americans and the SCOTUS are laughing at you.

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

Wee-Wee on the People

How is it "our" Constitution, just because some pushy authority-freaks tell us we better believe it is? This is typical of how our debates our misdirected from above. We don't have to believe either interpretation of the Second Amendment; we only have to believe what our common sense tells us is either self-defense or a dangerous exaggeration of it.

It's very similar to the early Protestant idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, instead of relying on some Pope to tell him what it means. What's more, we don't even need a Constitution for that. The will of the majority must be supreme, not some easily abused power of an 18th Century document written behind closed doors. Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. Those predatory creeps don't belong in a free country.

I actually understand our Constitution. You have to understand that our federal Constitution is Express not Implied.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

There are No Natural rights in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

Wee-Wee on the People

How is it "our" Constitution, just because some pushy authority-freaks tell us we better believe it is? This is typical of how our debates our misdirected from above. We don't have to believe either interpretation of the Second Amendment; we only have to believe what our common sense tells us is either self-defense or a dangerous exaggeration of it.

It's very similar to the early Protestant idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, instead of relying on some Pope to tell him what it means. What's more, we don't even need a Constitution for that. The will of the majority must be supreme, not some easily abused power of an 18th Century document written behind closed doors. Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. Those predatory creeps don't belong in a free country.

I actually understand our Constitution. You have to understand that our federal Constitution is Express not Implied.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

There are No Natural rights in our Second Amendment.

It is our supreme law of the land.

Socialism starts with a Social Contract, that "spells it out".

 

[Contumacious]

Americans and the SCOTUS are laughing at you.

No, they aren't. I actually understand the federal doctrine.

That is not in evidence.

lol. it is in our Constitution. I don't need right wing, hearsay or right wing, soothsay.

Wee-Wee on the People

How is it "our" Constitution, just because some pushy authority-freaks tell us we better believe it is? This is typical of how our debates our misdirected from above. We don't have to believe either interpretation of the Second Amendment; we only have to believe what our common sense tells us is either self-defense or a dangerous exaggeration of it.

It's very similar to the early Protestant idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, instead of relying on some Pope to tell him what it means. What's more, we don't even need a Constitution for that. The will of the majority must be supreme, not some easily abused power of an 18th Century document written behind closed doors. Real men punch Constitution-lovers in the mouth. Those predatory creeps don't belong in a free country.

I actually understand our Constitution. You have to understand that our federal Constitution is Express not Implied.

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

There are No Natural rights in our Second Amendment.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution......


The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

This principle will soon be cemented by Justice Kavanaugh


.