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 27 of 30 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 291

Thread: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

  1. #261
    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
    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.
    Red herring? That's what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers used an originalist interpretation, and that we use the same legal standard today. If you think our current Supreme Court is originalist, I think the Federalist Society will disagree with you.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #262
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It certainly doesn't do it any favors.
    Actually, it rather does, considering that it was put there specifically to reinforce the Framers' ideas of why a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary under their intent, but undesirable.
    “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. #263
    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
    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.
    These were intelligent men. "Originalist" versus "living" is not a new debate; it predates the Constitution. Why the **** would they assume something like that, when it was such a big legal debate even in THEIR time?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #264
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Red herring? That's what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers used an originalist interpretation, and that we use the same legal standard today. If you think our current Supreme Court is originalist, I think the Federalist Society will disagree with you.
    If you think that's what I said, you obviously didn't follow what I wrote. I didn't say anything about "our Supreme Court," so yeah, it's a complete red herring.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 10-27-09 at 08:07 PM.
    “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

  5. #265
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    These were intelligent men. "Originalist" versus "living" is not a new debate; it predates the Constitution. Why the **** would they assume something like that, when it was such a big legal debate even in THEIR time?
    Considering that you didn't follow my point earlier (see above), let's see what you think constitutes this "originalist" vs. "living" debate predating the Constitution. Show 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

  6. #266
    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
    Actually, it rather does, considering that it was put there specifically to reinforce the Framers' ideas of why a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary under their intent, but undesirable.
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're referring to "the Framers' ideas" as though they were all a monolithic entity. And not only that, but you cite the MINORITY view as representative of them all. Obviously if "the Framers" thought a Bill of Rights was undesirable, it wouldn't exist in the first place. The fact is that some of them wanted a Bill of Rights, some of them didn't, and the ones who wanted it won that battle.

    This is the problem with originalist interpretations of the Constitution. It assumes knowledge of what the writers intended, and applies that intent to EVERYONE who ratified the Constitution.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 10-27-09 at 08:09 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #267
    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
    If you think that's what I said, you obviously didn't follow what I wrote. I didn't say anything about "our Supreme Court," so yeah, it's a complete red herring.
    You said the "standard interpretation of law" that we use today. If that's not a reference to the Supreme Court, I don't know what is.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #268
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You said the "standard interpretation of law" that we use today. If that's not a reference to the Supreme Court, I don't know what is.
    No.

    I said it was the standard for legal interpretation, i.e., statutory construction. If you don't know what the difference is, then you shouldn't be in this particular conversation.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 10-27-09 at 08:30 PM.
    “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. #269
    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
    I notice that you didn't actually refute it, you just used a lot of emotional hyperbole.
    It didn't require refutation. Certain propositions are so completely absurd it becomes clear their author wasn't serious. Yours was one of those.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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.
    Not according to you. According to you, the Constitution is made out of sand, to be shifted around where ever the whim of the wind drives it.

    You can't have it both ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And why should we USE the original meaning?
    Because that protects our freedom from theiving socialists.

    Because it hasn't been amended to match your views.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That's what this discussion is about. Try to keep up.
    Yeah, we past that point already.

    Original intent matters because it stops socialists from stealing our freedom and our money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And yet they gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Hmm.
    Hmmm.....to perform the limited actions allowed congress under Article 1, Section 8.....hmmmmm....

    and it's "hmmmm", not "mmmm,mmmm,mmmm". Got it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Your moronic partisan hackery still does not answer the question of why we should care about original intent at all.
    Sure it did.

    I am not responsible for the abilities of the people reading what I write.

  10. #270
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're referring to "the Framers' ideas" as though they were all a monolithic entity. And not only that, but you cite the MINORITY view as representative of them all. Obviously if "the Framers" thought a Bill of Rights was undesirable, it wouldn't exist in the first place. The fact is that some of them wanted a Bill of Rights, some of them didn't, and the ones who wanted it won that battle.

    This is the problem with originalist interpretations of the Constitution. It assumes knowledge of what the writers intended, and applies that intent to EVERYONE who ratified the Constitution.
    No, there were the Framers, who conceived and wrote the Constitution, and then there was Congress, many of whom were anti-Federalists, who pushed for and passed the Bill of Rights.
    “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

Page 27 of 30 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... 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
  •