View Poll Results: Does the original intent still matter when discussing the Constitution?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. We should strictly follow both the letter and spirit of the original intent.

    28 35.90%
  • Yes. We should follow the original principles and then apply them as new issues arise.

    21 26.92%
  • Yes. The original intent of the Constition is important, but other factors must be considered.

    15 19.23%
  • No. The Constitution is a guiding set of principles that we can interrpret to fit our current needs.

    10 12.82%
  • Other

    4 5.13%
Page 26 of 30 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 291

Thread: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

  1. #251
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If the argument behind that sentiment were valid, then there's be no need for Article I section 8 to contain any clauses other than the first and the last.

    The inclusion of the 16 other clauses, clauses that illustrate what was meant by "general welfare" and "common defense", negates that argument.
    Yeah, that's what I said, ie, the socialists are full of ****.

  2. #252
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The Founding Fathers were not idiots. The debate between "originalist" versus "living" interpretations of law predate the Constitution. If there was a consensus among them about how the Constitution should be interpreted, they certainly would have mentioned it in the document.

    So it doesn't say either way. And therefore its absence is open to interpretation.
    Even in the days of the Founders, the accepted practice of interpretation of law was 1st) look to the actual plain meaning of the words, and then 2nd) if it can't be determined from that, go on to the intent of the creators of the law. Only after exhausting that do you go on to other means of interpretation. That's the standard of interpretation of law still today.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  3. #253
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    A rebuke of the idea that people have only the rights enumerated in the Constitution (and its corollary: that government has the power to infringe on non-enumerated rights if their actions relate to an enumerated power of government). I don't know how many times I've heard someone claim that there's no right to privacy, using the reasoning that it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and therefore doesn't exist.
    Are you saying that the 9th Amendment refutes the entire idea of originalist interpretation?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #254
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So you're basing your view of original intent off the handful of people who wrote specifically about any given issue? How do you know they even represent the majority of the ratifiers?
    yes, your argument makes perfect sense.

    I mean, clearly the vast overwhelming majority of the legislators that ratified the Constitution CLEARLY wanted a complete blank check and a totally free hand, that's why they voted for a Constitution that in the simplest interpretation (ie, taking the meanings of the actual words in the Constitution itself) says that the powers of government will be extremely limited to only carefully drawn and exceptionally limited areas.

    That's perfectly clear that they wanted a socailsit paradise like Cuba and Cambodia, but were too stupid to say so.

    Give us a break. The people that wrote the Constitution made it perfectly clear what was meant, and it is more than perfectly clear that the people of the United States DID NOT want a totalitarian thieving government that would steal from them. So clearly the original intent of the authors of the Constitution was to prevent exactly the circumstances your Messiah is setting us up for right now.

  5. #255
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Even in the days of the Founders, the accepted practice of interpretation of law was 1st) look to the actual plain meaning of the words, and then 2nd) if it can't be determined from that, go on to the intent of the creators of the law. Only after exhausting that do you go on to other means of interpretation. That's the standard of interpretation of law still today.
    Uhh I don't know what Supreme Court YOU have been looking at, but original intent is HARDLY the standard of interpretation of law used today...
    Last edited by Kandahar; 10-27-09 at 07:54 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #256
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Are you saying that the 9th Amendment refutes the entire idea of originalist interpretation?
    It certainly doesn't do it any favors.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #257
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Founding Fathers expected future generations to follow their original intent.
    Of course not.

    The Founding Fathers fully expected that the day after they died, down would become up, left would become backwards (that DID happen), and in would mean out.

    That's why they wrote a specific process to change the Constitution, because clearly they knew that since the document had no meaning they had to make it absolutely almost impossible to change it.

    Then again, I'm pretty sure not one of those men ever tried to build a house out of cooked spaghetti, which is what you're saying they did with the Constitution.

    I just love the silly arguments you people put forth to lie about the meaning of the Constitution and what the people who wrote it thought.

  8. #258
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Uhh I don't know what Supreme Court YOU have been looking at, but original intent is HARDLY the standard of interpretation of law used today...
    I'm telling you what the accepted hierarchy of interpretation of law has been for centuries, to speak to your specific point. If you feel you need to throw in a red herring, so be it.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #259
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    yes, your argument makes perfect sense.
    I notice that you didn't actually refute it, you just used a lot of emotional hyperbole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    I mean, clearly the vast overwhelming majority of the legislators that ratified the Constitution CLEARLY wanted a complete blank check and a totally free hand,
    Our government has a system of checks and balances (which are spelled out in the Constitution) which prevents anyone from getting a complete blank check.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    that's why they voted for a Constitution that in the simplest interpretation (ie, taking the meanings of the actual words in the Constitution itself) says that the powers of government will be extremely limited to only carefully drawn and exceptionally limited areas.
    And why should we USE the original meaning? That's what this discussion is about. Try to keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    That's perfectly clear that they wanted a socailsit paradise like Cuba and Cambodia, but were too stupid to say so.
    The Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government, and prevents cruel and unusual punishment. So that takes care of this infantile comparison. Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Give us a break. The people that wrote the Constitution made it perfectly clear what was meant, and it is more than perfectly clear that the people of the United States DID NOT want a totalitarian thieving government that would steal from them.
    And yet they gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Hmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    So clearly the original intent of the authors of the Constitution was to prevent exactly the circumstances your Messiah is setting us up for right now.
    Your moronic partisan hackery still does not answer the question of why we should care about original intent at all.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #260
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    (Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "read these words, o ye future Generations, in the light deemed most Favorable to your current whims" either.)
    Yeah, that's pretty much why they wrote it down on paper. They were assuming their descendants would be smart enough to figure out that since it was still in effect it still meant what it did the day before, and the day it was ratified.

    I guess they couldn't foresee just how ignorant their descendants would become, and how dishonest.

Page 26 of 30 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •