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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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?
Slightly better than Spice Networks.
I 100% believe in originalism. Change my mind.
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.
...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 have very fleshed out thoughts on this, interested to hear what others think.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.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!
The Constitution does not evolve, it can be amended. Those are two very different things.
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.
There is a process that must be followed for laws to evolve and change.
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.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.
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.
The Constitution does not evolve
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.
.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.
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.
.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.
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.
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.
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.
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!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.