Big Dummy recently made a post about how he was proud that Trump will soon have succeeded in getting three originalists on the Supreme Court. How many of you deplorables agree that it is a good thing to fill the Supreme Court with originalists?
Originalism
- Thread starter riflearm2
- Start date
I suppose that good people can disagree on this one. This is my understanding of the issue at hand. Originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is interpreted as fixed as of the time it was enacted, and non-originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is viewed as evolving with changes in society and culture. IMO changing our understanding of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution is a slippery slope. For good or bad it has served us well for over 250 years now.
In that case, you are against women voting. The first mention of the "right to vote" in the Constitution is in the 14th Amendment. It clearly specifies "men," not women, as having that right. Further, the age is 21, not 18, so now you're having to advocate raising the voting age.
However, the first mention of the right to vote in the Constitution (the 14th Amendment) doesn't actually say that states can't take away that right or has to allow all men the ability to vote. It simply says that if a state doesn't allow all men at least 21 years old to vote, the state will lose congressional representation. So the state can bar anyone it wants the right to vote, but in doing so (assuming it bars any man at least 21 years old suffrage), the state should not have congressional representation.
To summarize, if you're a true originalist, you are for states barring anyone other than males 21 years of age or older the right to vote. The first (original) mention of the topic only states that males 21 years or older should have that right, and even if that right is infringed upon for that group, the state should be allowed to do it but should just lose its congressional representation.
And this isn't even the point I was trying to make with this post. I am just using an easy example to show how absurd your support of is of originalism.
Caveat: I'm terrible at US history/civics. I got a 5 in AP US history and never took another history class
...but didn't the legislature via the 19th amendment correct women's voting rights? If we think something is wrong with the way the law is written can't we just fix the law via the legislature, not just re-interpret the law in the courts?
It doesn't mean you're against women's voting rights, it just means you think the way to fix it is via a new amendment, right?
I don't know, I'm out of my league here.
But that means you aren't an originalist. Let's look at Ohio Herd's definition:
"Originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is interpreted as fixed as of the time it was enacted, and non-originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is viewed as evolving with changes in society and culture."
If the Constitution "evolves with changes in society and culture," as it did regarding giving blacks and women the right to vote, you're a "non-originalist" according to Ohio Herd.
Exactly my point. And that wasn't even the point I was trying to make with this thread- just the low hanging fruit to show why being an originalist is absurd.
I didn't read the thread other than your post.
I always interpreted original ism as what I mentioned above - if the law says women can't vote then the judge has to say women can't vote because that was the original intent of that law. You then go and fix it in the legislature.
I don't have very fleshed out thoughts on this, interested to hear what others think.
I always interpreted original ism as what I mentioned above - if the law says women can't vote then the judge has to say women can't vote because that was the original intent of that law. You then go and fix it in the legislature.
I don't have very fleshed out thoughts on this, interested to hear what others think.
Last edited:
And that's the problem. Most of the deplorables on here don't know what opinion to have until Tucker Carlson discusses it.
Hell, look at Herdman in his argument yesterday. First, he tried claiming that "bring them home" when referring to soldiers doesn't mean bring them home to the United States, but rather, just take them to Germany or England.
Then, in that same thread, he did a 180 and claimed that "bring them home" didn't mean having them go to Germany. His initial argument was so asinine that he ended up arguing against himself.
Originalism means you interpret the law using the meaning WHEN ITS ADOPTED. If something comes along, say a new amendment, then that would take precedent. Of course a legal scholar such as yourself should know that
No. What you've shown is that you have no idea what you're talking about. There is nothing about a Constitutional Amendment that is repugnant to originalism. To the contrary, the ability to amend the Constitution was built into the document by the Founders when it was ratified - ergo, an originalist concept.
Then, as I have argued before, you have no problem with me having nukes as a private citizen. The right to bear arms was created to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Based on weapons, private citizens are at a huge disadvantage and should be able to bear the arms that can allow us to overcome the federal government.
On top of that, the major point of originalists is that the Constitution does not evolve. Amendments prove otherwise. If the Constitution does not evolve, then the amendments regarding voting rights for women, blacks, etc. would be something you're against. Amendments are part of the Constitution which clarify or change the Constitution, meaning that it DOES evolve.
Then that means the Constitution DOES evolve! You can't argue that the Constitution hasn't evolved since its first mention of "right to vote." The entire position has evolved regarding that based on what is socially and culturally acceptable now. If you agree that the Constitution can and has evolved, then you can't be an originalist!
Well, you failed miserably at changing my mind simply because you dont even understand what you are arguing against. It’s really not that hard, originalism is objective. Your example is actually the perfect illustration of how it should work. The court does not make laws and should not. If the law says only 21 and older men can vote then the court should rule that a 21’year old woman can’t vote. If society evolves on the subject it is up to the voters and legislators to reflect that change by amending the law.
It is not the role of the judicial branch to make laws. They are not elected and do not answer to the people, so in no case should they have the power to legislate. If you take your example and have the Supreme Court rule that women can vote, that is a clear example of legislating from the bench.
It is not the role of the judicial branch to make laws. They are not elected and do not answer to the people, so in no case should they have the power to legislate. If you take your example and have the Supreme Court rule that women can vote, that is a clear example of legislating from the bench.
But that's not what the law says, moron. You should try reading sometime and engaging in critical thinking.
The "law" stated that men 21 and older should be able to vote. If a state infringes on that, the state loses congressional representation. In other words, the law didn't exclude blacks, women, children, or anybody else from voting. It did, however, punish states by having them lose congressional representation if they barred any male 21 or older from voting.
Again, a law saying that men 21 and older can vote does not mean that women can't vote. Critical thinking. Try it.
So you're saying that if society evolves, then the Constitution can evolve, too. That's the opposite of originalism. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
I don't mind the constitution evolving over time, but that should be the responsibility of the congress and amendments to the constitution. Evolving and legislating from the courts is not how it should work in my opinion.
Do I personally think the Senate should have continued with the confirmation of ACB, NO, Not after what they did to Merrick Garland. Do I think if the tables had been turned in 2016 and not and the dems sat where the reps were and reps sat where the dems sat, would anything have changed in what happened, NO. The dems are as bad as the reps on if I want it and am in charge I will do everything in my power to get it. Main problem with our government nobody in Washington is willing to compromise for the citizens anymore.
Anyone who reads this and thinks NO the dems would not have done that, pull your head out of the sand so you can breathe -- you are missing some oxygen and having some brain issues.
Do I personally think the Senate should have continued with the confirmation of ACB, NO, Not after what they did to Merrick Garland. Do I think if the tables had been turned in 2016 and not and the dems sat where the reps were and reps sat where the dems sat, would anything have changed in what happened, NO. The dems are as bad as the reps on if I want it and am in charge I will do everything in my power to get it. Main problem with our government nobody in Washington is willing to compromise for the citizens anymore.
Anyone who reads this and thinks NO the dems would not have done that, pull your head out of the sand so you can breathe -- you are missing some oxygen and having some brain issues.
The Constitution does not evolve, it can be amended. Those are two very different things.
Evolve would be, for example, that the 2nd Amendment say that a citizens right to own and bare arms shall not be infringed. However, at the time that was written many people relied on hunting to feed their family. Since no one really has to hunt to eat anymore, there are really no compelling reasons why the average person needs to own a gun.
Amended would be that legislators believe that people don’t really need guns anymore. They craft and pass a Constitutional amendment outlawing the personal ownership of guns. That amendment is then put on the ballot of all 50 states and if 75% are on board the law then becomes that individuals can’t own guns.
the whole process was designed to specifically stop what you favor. The intent was the Constitution was steadfast and changing it was a hard, long process that requires overwhelming support from a super majority of voters. This insulates the Document from being subject to whims and flavors of the day. It ensures that the beliefs of the minority are heard, that’s why it’s not a 51% to pass.
if the founders wanted to make sure 75% of the states supported something it certainly stands to reason that the didn’t want only 5 people to make the decision through a majority ruling.
Evolve would be, for example, that the 2nd Amendment say that a citizens right to own and bare arms shall not be infringed. However, at the time that was written many people relied on hunting to feed their family. Since no one really has to hunt to eat anymore, there are really no compelling reasons why the average person needs to own a gun.
Amended would be that legislators believe that people don’t really need guns anymore. They craft and pass a Constitutional amendment outlawing the personal ownership of guns. That amendment is then put on the ballot of all 50 states and if 75% are on board the law then becomes that individuals can’t own guns.
the whole process was designed to specifically stop what you favor. The intent was the Constitution was steadfast and changing it was a hard, long process that requires overwhelming support from a super majority of voters. This insulates the Document from being subject to whims and flavors of the day. It ensures that the beliefs of the minority are heard, that’s why it’s not a 51% to pass.
if the founders wanted to make sure 75% of the states supported something it certainly stands to reason that the didn’t want only 5 people to make the decision through a majority ruling.
There is a process that must be followed for laws to evolve and change. And the at is the entire point. Once again a brilliant legal mind like yours would understand that. It’s why woman can vote and why Michigan can drink all day.
Uhh, that's evolving, moron. Society/culture has evolved, hence the need to amend the Constitution.
I haven't favored anything. I have said that originalism is foolish as has been repeatedly shown.
Which means the Constitution is a living and breathing document! It can evolve and change! That's the opposite of originalism.
No it’s not you’re intentionally being obtuse. It never meant that nothing could be changed. What it means is that the laws as written must be interpreted by their original meaning. You can’t infer what isn’t there.
Yes but it’s fun watching him to try so hard to be relevant and important. Durham and Hunter Biden‘s laptop knows!Me contemplating trying to correct rifle's no good, horrible, very bad argument.
Thought this was a decent column:
www.chicagotribune.com
Even liberal justices and scholars give considerable weight to the literal text of the Constitution and what it meant at the time it was ratified. But strict fidelity to originalism is a bit like strict compliance with all traffic laws: more appealing in theory than in practice.
The attacks on “legislating from the bench” go back to the 1950s, when the court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, banned racial segregation in public schools. William F. Buckley’s conservative magazine National Review called the decision “an act of judicial usurpation” that “ran patently counter to the intent of the Constitution.” In some respects, that was true, but it was also the right decision.
Warren was vilified on the right as long as he was on the bench. But where would we be without the Warren Court? Before it acted, as University of Chicago law professors Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss wrote in their book “Democracy and Equality,” states were free to ban interracial marriage, impose poll taxes that disenfranchised African Americans, forbid the sale of contraceptives and violate the principle of “one person, one vote.” Police didn’t have to inform suspects of their rights, and evidence seized in illegal searches could be used in court.
Would conservatives really want to restore the unconscionable practices this liberal court ruled against? If so, they aren’t likely to admit it.
Column: Amy Coney Barrett’s malignant view of the Constitution
Americans actually like the results of judicial activism.
The attacks on “legislating from the bench” go back to the 1950s, when the court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, banned racial segregation in public schools. William F. Buckley’s conservative magazine National Review called the decision “an act of judicial usurpation” that “ran patently counter to the intent of the Constitution.” In some respects, that was true, but it was also the right decision.
Warren was vilified on the right as long as he was on the bench. But where would we be without the Warren Court? Before it acted, as University of Chicago law professors Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss wrote in their book “Democracy and Equality,” states were free to ban interracial marriage, impose poll taxes that disenfranchised African Americans, forbid the sale of contraceptives and violate the principle of “one person, one vote.” Police didn’t have to inform suspects of their rights, and evidence seized in illegal searches could be used in court.
Would conservatives really want to restore the unconscionable practices this liberal court ruled against? If so, they aren’t likely to admit it.
The Constitution is two things.
One thing is an outline of how our government is composed and works.
The second thing, the thing that was lacking in the Articles and led to the first ten amendments, is a declaration and reservation of rights. Our understanding of human rights absolutely evolves, and thus so does the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment certainly was not written with any intent to grant homosexuals equal rights, or for whites and blacks to engage in sex or marriage, but our understanding of the natural law right to equal protection of the law has evolved.
This is ludicrous. I have explained this here before: the Second Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with the common ownership of firearms for hunting of fending off the Injuns. Why not? Because at the time it was simply understood a rifle was needed by many for hunting and for protection against the Natives on the fringes of the Union.
However, the British did in fact attempt to disarm the militia and people of Massachusetts, particularly in Boston. Why? Because they were pretty much in open rebellion at that point. This, and the distrust of standing armies, is why the Second Amendment was written.
The Bill of Rights is largely a collection of the bullshit the Crown tried to impose on the Colonists, and a declaration that our new government understood that bullshit would not be tolerated by the citizens of this then new nation. You don't believe that? Then why is the Third Amendment there? The Quartering Acts...some bullshit the Crown imposed on the Colonies.
Originalists using the Second to justify common ownership of guns for self defense against common criminals and not the government is actually bad law and the opposite of Originalism; Heller is an incredibly tortured reasoning to uphold what should be naturally evident. The right of self defense and to feed ones family is natural law, that is why the Constitution never mentions those reasons to bear arms. But natural law presents a problem for conservatives; it is natural law that I can smoke a plant if I want to, or fvck who I want to, cross imaginary lines on a map if I want to. So instead they evolve the shit of the Constitution to suit their political needs.
TRUE Originalism would be to understand and apply the fact the Founders were really big on natural law and rights and to apply that line of thought to the issues of today.
This is exactly where I wanted this discussion to go. Now that I have many of you deplorables insisting on originalism and claiming you are supporters of strict originalism, I have a few questions to ask of you morons. Thanks in advance to Big Dummy for mentioning his support of originalism last week which got me thinking about how foolish you all are:
One of, if not the most, important part of the Constitution when it comes to the government is the separation of powers. Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution lay out the powers of each of the three branches. So knowing this, coupled with the claims of being strict originalists we've seen in this thread, how do you deplorables justify these actions from your savior:
1) The Republican Senate usurped Obama's Constitutional right to appoint judges
2) Money that was appropriated for the military was diverted to pay for the border wall by Trump which went unchecked by the Republican Senate
3) Trump withheld aid to Ukraine that Congress had approved for immediate release
4) - 7) Let me know and I can provide more instances of Trump and the Republican Senate stomping on originalism and spitting on the Constitution.
One of, if not the most, important part of the Constitution when it comes to the government is the separation of powers. Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution lay out the powers of each of the three branches. So knowing this, coupled with the claims of being strict originalists we've seen in this thread, how do you deplorables justify these actions from your savior:
1) The Republican Senate usurped Obama's Constitutional right to appoint judges
2) Money that was appropriated for the military was diverted to pay for the border wall by Trump which went unchecked by the Republican Senate
3) Trump withheld aid to Ukraine that Congress had approved for immediate release
4) - 7) Let me know and I can provide more instances of Trump and the Republican Senate stomping on originalism and spitting on the Constitution.
Raoul, I don’t like writing books, especially when rifle is having such a hard time with the basic concepts, so I tried to simplify it.
Back to rifle - evolve and amend are no where close to the same thing. Evolution requires changes over time to the point where the original no longer exists. With amendments everything that was original remains, provides history and context.
The 19th amendment was written instead of going back and changing the original from all men to all people. The original document gives context to why, partially, the 19th was needed.
Back to rifle - evolve and amend are no where close to the same thing. Evolution requires changes over time to the point where the original no longer exists. With amendments everything that was original remains, provides history and context.
The 19th amendment was written instead of going back and changing the original from all men to all people. The original document gives context to why, partially, the 19th was needed.
.
The Senate is the check for a rouge President assigning anybody to the Supreme Court, which is why (Constitutionally) appointment requires the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s a bad example for you.
The president made his case that border security is paramount to national defense, which is the role of the military. He is the commander in chief and oversees the military (again, constitutionally). Another bad one for you.
3. is just a talking point. The funds were delivered and that type funding is often tied to conditions and aren’t delivered immediately, as pointed out by the CBO at the time. That was a little better, but hardly an example of the power of Congress ultimately being usurped.
Not even the biggest deplorable is buying your foolish claim above. You said that the Constitution does not evolve, and it absolutely does. Our society and customs have evolved regarding civil and natural rights - not only who is granted them but also what they are - and the Constitution has evolved numerous times based on society's evolution on those things.
And those amendments are part of the Constitution! That means it evolved! Your attempt at word semantics is a monumental failure.
The Senate has a responsibility to vote on the judicial appointment. By refusing to vote, they usurp the power given to the president by the Constitution. That is the opposite of originalism.
Wrong. You don't even know what the hell the topic is about. $2.5 billion that Trump tried pilfering was appropriated for drug programs. His argument of "national defense" has nothing to do with drug programs and has nothing to do with the military. It's why it was ruled in violation of the Appropriations Clause.
That's entirely false. The Trump administration said the delay was due to a "policy reason."
"Policy reasons" do not permit the delay or change of the purse (Congressional power) under The Impoundment Act. It was a violation of the Constitution and any good originalist would be aghast at such a shitty and factually wrong attempt by you.
Last edited:
While I understand an effort to simplify, you were not historically accurate....which is important in a conversation about Originalism....you actually argued for the evolution of the Constitution without realizing it.
I cannot overstate how much I agree with this. Certainly the Senate can vote no, but to not even hold as much as a committee hearing is ignoring the duty of the Senate.
I understand the politics of it and don't necessarily blame that aspect on them. But if you look at how fast they are moving for this slvt's confirmation and then see the 250+ days they refused to do what the Constitution instructs them to do and what they are paid from our money to do, it is a clear infringement.
And if things were reversed the Democrats will be doing the same thing the Republicans are now. But wait, what is that I’m smelling? Oh, that’s the smell of desperation from little man rifle. Durham an Hunter Biden‘s laptop knows!
