• 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
I think much of the Constitution, as to the overall reach of the government should remain intact, though I feel that it is the principles that are the driving force and should be considered the most.
 
To illustrate this point, let me ask you this: Suppose that we had a constitution that mandated that to amend the Constitution, you had to have unanimous support in both houses of Congress, unanimous support in every state legislature, and the signatures of the President and every governor. Surely you would agree that such a process was too difficult, and therefore an originalist intent would be impractical?

They had a similar problem under the Articles of Confederation, so they held a convention and scrapped it for the constitution. That's still a viable option today, but apparently most people don't agree that it's too difficult to amend--a primary reason the constitution was drafted to replace the articles was that it is easier to amend.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution sustains the federal republicanism that I oppose, and I consequently oppose numerous aspects of the Constitution itself while not taking issue with the civil liberties it protects. But I'd still worry about the potentially turbulent consequences of some Constitutional breakdown or destruction and could only advocate it in appropriate circumstances.
 
It has only been done 17 times in 200+ years. Amending the Constitution should be difficult, but if we're going to use an originalist interpretation, it should not be so difficult that we're only averaging one change every 12 years.

I think the changes should be even less. So it is a matter of opinion really as I don't agree at all.

It illustrates the point that if a Constitution is crushingly difficult to change, then an originalist interpretation wouldn't make sense.

Sorry that is nothing but theory. I do not believe the Constitution is a "living breathing" document and many agree.

Functional societies can have EITHER a difficult constitutional amendment process OR an originalist interpretation, not both. If you try to have both, you end up with a legal system designed for the 1780s rather than one for today.

The one we have today works just fine thank you very much. We don't need some egghead theory on "originalist interpretation" if we just use common sense.
 
The Founding Fathers were not all-knowing gods. They were human beings who wrote a document that worked for THEIR society. It's changed a bit in the 200+ years since then.



Again, they wrote the constitutional amendment process with THEIR society in mind. I doubt they considered that one day the country would have 50 states and span a continent. The amendment process is extremely difficult in today's world. Much more difficult than it should be, if "original intent" is going to be considered.
So what change did Thomas Jefferson propose to rectify the Constitutional crisis of doubling the size of the country?
 
You completely ignored where I wrote that it's too difficult to change the constitution, because the Founding Fathers were writing for 13 states, not 50. And they didn't have a 24/7 news cycle either.



That's ridiculous. If you'd actually READ the constitution, you'd see that the amendment process is not as easy as you make it sound. The Constitution has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights. Surely there have been more than 17 good ideas in the 200+ years since then. :roll:


To illustrate this point, let me ask you this: Suppose that we had a constitution that mandated that to amend the Constitution, you had to have unanimous support in both houses of Congress, unanimous support in every state legislature, and the signatures of the President and every governor. Surely you would agree that such a process was too difficult, and therefore an originalist intent would be impractical?


Originalist interpretations of constitutions work much better in states and countries where the Constitution is relatively easy to amend. The US has one of the hardest amendment processes in the world, and therefore is one of the countries LEAST suited to an originalist interpretation.
And a 24/7 news cycle has what relevance?
 
The Constitution sustains the federal republicanism that I oppose, and I consequently oppose numerous aspects of the Constitution itself while not taking issue with the civil liberties it protects. But I'd still worry about the potentially turbulent consequences of some Constitutional breakdown or destruction and could only advocate it in appropriate circumstances.
Sorry, but that's what we have here, I guess you'll have to live somewhere else.
 
Society has changed drastically since the 1700s, so I voted that other factors must also be considered. After all, the original intent was supportive of all sorts of practices (such as human slavery) that are now considered outrageous.
This is why there are procedures to amend it and why such changes should be approached with extreme caution.
 
Ideally it shouldn't matter, because a society should ideally be governed by natural law, which is entirely objective and can be re-evaluated at any time based on the latest econometric data. Examples of this include slavery, women's rights (to a degree), USPS, and so on.

Unfortunately human beings have been incredibly stupid over the past couple of centuries, failing to understand the dangers of centralized power as well as the authors of the constitution have understood it... Nothing is sadder than children who fail to surpass their parents... :(
 
I think it does still matter. Should we take it as ironclad, unchangeable, or immutable? Probably not quite to that extent. But it needs to be understood, respected, and implemented as government and its power change and grow (or contract...hahaha, yeah that will happen). The base of what we were establishing in the Republic though should be proliferated. A commitment to the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Ideally it shouldn't matter, because a society should ideally be governed by natural law, which is entirely objective and can be re-evaluated at any time based on the latest econometric data. Examples of this include slavery, women's rights (to a degree), USPS, and so on.

Unfortunately human beings have been incredibly stupid over the past couple of centuries, failing to understand the dangers of centralized power as well as the authors of the constitution have understood it... Nothing is sadder than children who fail to surpass their parents... :(

Ideally it shouldn't, but in reality it does--for the reasons you mention and many others.
 
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19. years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl81.htm

In other words, Thomas Jefferson would never support us still using the constitution we use today. What was that about what the founding fathers wanted?
 
Last edited:
I think the changes should be even less. So it is a matter of opinion really as I don't agree at all.

Really? You think 17 changes in 200+ years was too much? This implies that the document was nearly perfect when it was written (aside from the "major" amendments like banning slavery and women's suffrage). That's a level of ancestor-worship I'm not prepared to accept.

Blackdog said:
Sorry that is nothing but theory. I do not believe the Constitution is a "living breathing" document and many agree.

So you think a Constitution written for the 1780s should be interpreted with the original intent in mind, AND you think it should be crushingly difficult to amend it?

What's so special about the 1780s that made it the ideal time for today's legal systems to be based on? The world has changed.

Blackdog said:
The one we have today works just fine thank you very much.

That's because we DON'T use originalist interpretations for the most part. My point is that if we DID use them, and we preserved an extremely difficult amendment process, the Constitution would quickly become unworkable for today's world.
 
In other words, Thomas Jefferson would never support us still using the constitution we use today. What was that about what the founding fathers wanted?
What part of the Constitution did TJ write, and what was his vote on ratification?
 
So what change did Thomas Jefferson propose to rectify the Constitutional crisis of doubling the size of the country?

Huh? What does that have to do with anything I wrote? :confused:
 
In other words, Thomas Jefferson would never support us still using the constitution we use today. What was that about what the founding fathers wanted?

Aye, but the reason is for tighter control of the government. Preventing them from slowly corrupting the Constitution they are under and the laws they implement. However, in practice the omnibus legislation coming out of a system like that currently would put us further at risk to treason.

It would be nice if we could expire these thing, wipe the government clear, and start over ever 20 years; but it's not practical. As such, it becomes more important that the original necessity and means of the government be remembered and adhered to as best as possible. To limit the corrupting force of the government itself, it would be necessary for a People keeping a Constitution longer than 20 years to pay attention and uphold original intent towards to government. Otherwise, the government would become overly bloated and treasonous against its own people.

But if you want to throw out the government and start over every 20 years, I would entertain the argument.
 
Ideally it shouldn't matter, because a society should ideally be governed by natural law, which is entirely objective

Thank you for another John Galt rant that adds nothing whatsoever to the actual discussion. Don't flatter yourself; your personal political views are NOT entirely objective. Bye bye now. :2wave:
 
Thank you for making my point.
:2wave:

Why should Jefferson's opinion not matter? He may not have actually written the Constitution, but if we went off that, just about the only Founder's opinion that would matter would be Madison's. Jefferson was still one of the guiding lights of the Revolution, and I think it's disingenious not to give his opinion air just because he was in France at the time. Why don't you think it should count?
 
Huh? What does that have to do with anything I wrote? :confused:
".... that one day the country would have 50 states and span a continent..."
 
Why should Jefferson's opinion not matter?
Whatever his opinion may have been, it didnt make it into the Constitution.

His -opinion- doesnt invalidate the argument for original intent.
 
Whatever his opinion may have been, it didnt make it into the Constitution.

His -opinion- doesnt invalidate the argument for original intent.

So you think for everything even remotely constitution related, we should go off Madison alone?
 
".... that one day the country would have 50 states and span a continent..."

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. The Louisiana Purchase didn't happen until 1803. :confused:
I'm really not even sure what point you're trying to make...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom