• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

Does the original intent still matter when discussing the Constitution?


  • Total voters
    60
This is flawed on two levels. The first that a good idea is necessarily popular with people in Congress. And second that a good idea is popular with the general population. Ending slavery was a good idea. However highly unpopular with a large number of states. So was giving women the right to vote. A highly unpopular idea. A good idea does not depend on popularity.
Odd, given your statement, above, that both of the 'good ideas' that you mention were amended into the Constitution.
 
Wow your complete inability to grasp the entire point of that post is almost retarded.

That's because you failed to make a point. You held up women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery as objectively good ideas (which they are) that might not come to fruition if left up to popular sentiment or legislative action despite the fact that both of them were addressed via the Amendment process.
 
That's far superior than the notion that it means whatever you want it to mean, which is the central tenet of liberalism.

Actually it's the same. You just claim that what YOU want the Constitution to mean, was what the Founding Fathers wanted the Constitution to mean without any evidence. And you think that an original interpretation is best solely because it fits the best with what YOU want the Constitution to mean. :2wave:

You do not have a monopoly on the "correct" interpretation of the Constitution, nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Founding Fathers intended for us to use THEIR interpretation of the Constitution for all eternity.
 
That's because you failed to make a point. You held up women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery as objectively good ideas (which they are) that might not come to fruition if left up to popular sentiment or legislative action despite the fact that both of them were addressed via the Amendment process.

Slavery was hardly abolished through the typical amendment process. It was done so at the barrel of a gun. I suspect you wouldn't like it if activists held state legislatures hostage until they ratified an amendment that, say, spelled out the power of Congress to be involved in health care and environmental policy?
 
Last edited:
That's relevant.... how?

Read what Hatuey wrote:

This is flawed on two levels. The first that a good idea is necessarily popular with people in Congress. And second that a good idea is popular with the general population. Ending slavery was a good idea. However highly unpopular with a large number of states. So was giving women the right to vote. A highly unpopular idea. A good idea does not depend on popularity.

Are women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery inherently good ideas, or did they only become good ideas once the Constitution was amended? If they are inherently good ideas, why weren't they included from the outset? Hell, slavery couldn't even be abolished without extreme coercion of the states.

Worshipping the Founding Fathers' "original intent" and the constitutional amendment process is absurd, when both have plenty of flaws.
 
Read what Hatuey wrote:
I did. How long it took to make these changes is meaningless; that the chages were made thru the amendment process - as opposed to an interpretation of the living constitution based on the argument that they are 'good ideas' - is the relevant point.
 
I did. How long it took to make these changes is meaningless; that the chages were made thru the amendment process - as opposed to an interpretation of the living constitution based on the argument that they are 'good ideas' - is the relevant point.

A) The Constitution guarantees all states a republican form of government. That passage has been in there from the beginning, and could easily be interpreted to include minorities and women. But no, that would be "judicial activism," right? Better to deny people their rights for decades. :roll:

B) The North was OCCUPYING the South and FORCED the states to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. If they were dealing with any issue other than slavery, most people would view these changes as illegitimate. They were hardly passed through the traditional amendment process that the Founding Fathers had in mind.
 
It is still the lamp post of of our society that we base our laws on and sometimes even our moral compass.

Do I think it should be re-written to get with the here in and now and the upcoming 2010? Probably. :)
 
A) The Constitution guarantees all states a republican form of government. That passage has been in there from the beginning, and could easily be interpreted to include minorities and women. But no, that would be "judicial activism," right? Better to deny people their rights for decades. :roll:

B) The North was OCCUPYING the South and FORCED the states to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. If they were dealing with any issue other than slavery, most people would view these changes as illegitimate. They were hardly passed through the traditional amendment process that the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Again -- how is this relevant to what I said?
 
Slavery was hardly abolished through the typical amendment process. It was done so at the barrel of a gun.

Yes, the people had to do it. War, Amendment process, it's the people who - for better or worse - decide.

Do you honestly think a judicial activist could have abolished slavery or imposed women's suffrage from the bench? Who appoints the judiciary? Who appoints the person who appoints the judiciary?

I suspect you wouldn't like it if activists held state legislatures hostage until they ratified an amendment that, say, spelled out the power of Congress to be involved in health care and environmental policy?

I don't understand your point.
 
Again -- how is this relevant to what I said?

I abso-****ing-lutely KNEW you were going to respond with that asinine statement that you always do whenever you're backed into a corner. God damn you're annoying. I'm ****ing done with you, as usual. I'll debate Ethereal instead, since he actually has a brain.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the people had to do it. War, Amendment process, it's the people who - for better or worse - decide.

So then forcing legislatures to ratify an amendment at the barrel of a gun is a legitimate way to amend the Constitution? Where does the document say THAT?

Ethereal said:
Do you honestly think a judicial activist could have abolished slavery or imposed women's suffrage from the bench?

I don't know, but they certainly could have tried. The Constitution explicitly guarantees the states a republican form of government. It isn't much of a stretch to interpret that as including women's suffrage and minority rights...unless, of course, you are wedded to an "original intent" interpretation.

Ethereal said:
Who appoints the judiciary? Who appoints the person who appoints the judiciary?

The President and the people. Are you suggesting that it's just as hard to re-interpret the Constitution from the bench as it is to pass a constitutional amendment? The legal history of our country would beg to differ.

Ethereal said:
I don't understand your point.

If the amendment process is coercive, it's hardly legitimate, right? So I don't see why you tout the 13th amendment as an example of the success of our amendment process being used to implement a good idea. It took a civil war and an occupation of the South, and was hardly passed because that's what the southern states WANTED.
 
Last edited:
I abso-****ing-lutely KNEW you were going to respond with that asinine statement that you always do whenever you're backed into a corner. God you're annoying. I'm ****ing done with you, as usual. I'll debate Ethereal instead, since he actually has a brain.
Cry on, wussie-boy -- no longer having to listen to you trying to blame your rather vast intellectual and emotional shortcomings on my refusal to play your pre-pubescent games will make my life so much the better.
 
So then forcing legislatures to ratify an amendment at the barrel of a gun is a legitimate way to amend the Constitution? Where does the document say THAT?

It could be argued that the legislatures in question were violating the Constitution (re: slavery), which necessitated force.

I don't know, but they certainly could have tried. The Constitution explicitly guarantees the states a republican form of government. It isn't much of a stretch to interpret that as including women's suffrage and minority rights...unless, of course, you are wedded to an "original intent" interpretation.

Yes, the SCOTUS could have declared slavery unconstitutional (they didn't though...;)) but that wouldn't have constituted judicial activism so much as it would constitute a correct and originalist interpretation of the Constitution, since the language thereof strictly forbids such an institution.

Moreover, the actual effect such a declaration would have on the institution of slavery would have been utterly negligible. The South wasn't about to give up their slaves just because some judges told them to.

Women's suffrage is a bit more subtle an issue, since half our nation's economy wasn't dependent upon denying women the right to vote, so I'm sure a SCOTUS decision rendering such denial unconstitutional would have no doubt passed muster but this returns me to my earlier point, i.e., that this isn't necessarily judicial activism since the Fourteenth Amendment already bound the States and guaranteed equal protection under the law.

I think both Amendments were totally redundant but they still stand as a testament to the legitimacy of the process in bringing about needed changes.

The President and the people. Are you suggesting that it's just as hard to re-interpret the Constitution from the bench as it is to pass a constitutional amendment? The legal history of our country would beg to differ.

I'm just saying that the judiciary is often representative of contemporary society, which means they can't necessarily be counted upon to radically alter the social norms of their times. Basically, fundamental alterations in our social fabric will only occur if a majority of the people are desirous of it.

If the amendment process is coercive, it's hardly legitimate, right? So I don't see why you tout the 13th amendment as an example of the success of our amendment process being used to implement a good idea. It took a civil war and an occupation of the South, and was hardly passed because that's what the southern states WANTED.

If the coercion is a matter of enforcing the law then I don't suppose it's illegitimate, although I do see your point.
 
Back
Top Bottom