• 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?

  • Yes. We should strictly follow both the letter and spirit of the original intent.

    Votes: 21 35.0%

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

    Votes: 18 30.0%

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

    Votes: 11 18.3%

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

    Votes: 6 10.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • Total voters
    60
Kandahar said:
Actually the US is not at the top of the list by either of those measures...but regardless, there are lots of free/prosperous countries with constitutions that are much easier to amend. Hell, Israel and the UK don't even have constitutions at all.
Click to expand...

You aren't helping your argument at all.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Something that wasn't procedural, like Congressional raises, or the Order of Succession.

Well, I need to do some things before my date with the lovely Rose, so I'll catch you guys later
Click to expand...

After more than 200 years, that's it?

I would be for an amendment fixing the system for congressional raises but I definitely don't think that's a strong enough reason to consider the constitution outdated or ineffective.


take good care of rose.
 
other said:
Important to you, or important to me? The amendment process is designed to ensure that most agree so changes can't be made arbitrarily on a whim.

I asked earlier what you thought needed to be fixed with the constitution as-is...what do you feel needs to be changed right now?
Click to expand...

I can think of many things that need to be changed (or at least codified):

1. Our system for electing a president
2. A constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy
3. A redefinition of the scope of congressional power
4. A redefinition of how DC is governed (preferably the same as a state)
5. Term limits for congressmen and Supreme Court justices
6. The Equal Rights Amendment
7. A clarification that all "military actions" OR wars must be declared by Congress, not the President
8. A change to the constitutional amendment process itself

Those are just a few of my suggestions. I'm sure many people have their own lists. But alas, the constitutional amendment process is just too cumbersome and difficult in today's world, which the Founding Fathers never anticipated. Therefore we cannot use an original intent. Our government would simply not function properly if we kept a very difficult amendment process AND relied on original intent, because we'd end up with a government that was very much like what they had in 1789...hardly a good model for today's world.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I generally just respond to him until he starts pulling that crap, then ignore him and talk with people who are actually debating intelligently.
Click to expand...
This fully explains why you never talk to yourself...
:roll:
 
Crunch said:
Sure it is, unless you go by something as biased against the US as the UN is, then of course Cuba has more freedom and a better medical system. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well whether the US is #1 or #12 or #30 in a certain category is largely irrelevant. The point is that there are plenty of free and prosperous countries that don't have cumbersome amendment processes.
 
Kandahar said:
I can think of many things that need to be changed (or at least codified):

1. Our system for electing a president
2. A constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy
3. A redefinition of the scope of congressional power
4. A redefinition of how DC is governed (preferably the same as a state)
5. Term limits for congressmen and Supreme Court justices
6. The Equal Rights Amendment
7. A change to the constitutional amendment process itself

Those are just a few of my suggestions. I'm sure many people have their own lists. But alas, the constitutional amendment process is just too cumbersome and difficult in today's world, which the Founding Fathers never anticipated. Therefore we cannot use an original intent. Our government would simply not function properly if we kept a very difficult amendment process AND relied on original intent, because we'd end up with a government that was very much like what they had in 1789...hardly a good model for today's world.
Click to expand...

In some cases of some I am with you, but in others I am glad the process is cumbersome for you.

You still have a chance of advocating for a change, but the benefit of the doubt is with me because if a system is disrupted, it has to be for a good reason--as the disruption may prove destructive.
 
Kandahar said:
Well whether the US is #1 or #12 or #30 in a certain category is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Then why were you arguing it?
The point is that there are plenty of free and prosperous countries that don't have cumbersome amendment processes.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't advance your arguement either. There is an old saying that is also very true.... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
Crunch said:
Then why were you arguing it?
Click to expand...

YOU were the one who brought up the US being the freest, most prosperous, best in bed, and yada-yada of any nation in the world. Not me.

Crunch said:
Which doesn't advance your arguement either. There is an old saying that is also very true.... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Click to expand...

So then you're saying that as long as the US is free and prosperous, there is no need to make any changes to anything. Got it. :roll:
 
Kandahar said:
YOU were the one who brought up the US being the freest, most prosperous, best in bed, and yada-yada of any nation in the world. Not me.
Click to expand...

True, I said that... at which time you started arguing about it, then when I refuted you, you said it didn't mater anyway, .... see?
So then you're saying that as long as the US is free and prosperous, there is no need to make any changes to anything. Got it. :roll:
Click to expand...

Get enough people behind the changes you want and you are good to go.... that's how our constitution works.
 
jamesrage said:
I voted "Yes. We should strictly follow both the letter and spirit of the original intent." This Oh the constitution was written in the 18th century is nothing more than a load of crap used to restrict constitutional rights. The right to bear arms, the right to privacy, the right to freedom of religion and other rights are just as applicable today as they were the 1700s.
Click to expand...



Yes, but all the things you mentioned are all in the bill of rights, which is not even part of the original constitution, but are instead the first ten amendments to the constitution.


Not only that, but that is only a very small percentage of the constitution as a whole. So as I said in my original post, some parts of the constitution are still just as timely today as then(the bill of rights for example). But there are other factors which make a originalist interpretation of the constitution a bad idea.
 
Blackdog said:
The original intent is right there for all to see.

Start by actually reading the Constitution and not letting someone else interpret it for you.

It has little to do with arogence or needing a time machine. A simple reading of the letters and comunications of the founders (yes we have many of them) will spell it out for even the weakest mind.

The intent of the founders is easy to see. It is the people who want to change it that try and lie about basic tenants like the 2nd amendment for example. "A well regulated militia" is the people. As told by Benjamen Franklin, etc. And yet we still have idiots who say it means military only or some such nonsense.

So no, only 1 correct version.
Click to expand...


That is a false statement, it is not always easy to determine the intent of the founders, as many of the founders had different intents. If you read the idea of Alexander Hamilton, you will find an approach which would be vastly different than if if you read the ideas of Thomas Jefferson. To say that the intent is easily discerned is wrong, but to say it is impossible to know anything is wrong as well.
 
Kandahar said:
I can think of many things that need to be changed (or at least codified):

1. Our system for electing a president
2. A constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy
3. A redefinition of the scope of congressional power
4. A redefinition of how DC is governed (preferably the same as a state)
5. Term limits for congressmen and Supreme Court justices
6. The Equal Rights Amendment
7. A clarification that all "military actions" OR wars must be declared by Congress, not the President
8. A change to the constitutional amendment process itself

Those are just a few of my suggestions. I'm sure many people have their own lists. But alas, the constitutional amendment process is just too cumbersome and difficult in today's world, which the Founding Fathers never anticipated. Therefore we cannot use an original intent. Our government would simply not function properly if we kept a very difficult amendment process AND relied on original intent, because we'd end up with a government that was very much like what they had in 1789...hardly a good model for today's world.
Click to expand...

1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 have all been effectively enacted, without being official ammendments to the Constitution. Mostly through court rulings that "interpreted" the Constitution in a way that was not entirely consistent with original intent. That's why no one has felt the need to push through amendments. Why bother when activist courts enact the changes? This also points to why no one worries about number eight on your list. We tend to use the courts to update or reinvent our Constitution. If we had a court that wasn't so willing to ignore or reinterpret original intent, then we'd have more need for amendments and might have more enacted. The fact is the amendment process is largely ignored with the exception of a few hot button issues that have no chance of passing (gay marriage, flag burning, ect).

The problem I have with this is the Supreme Court is the least accountable and least responsive branch of the federal government. The Constitution is meant to be the supreme law of the land. If we have judges appointed to a lifetime position empowered to simply create new interpretations to fit what they see as our current needs, there is no accountability. It entirely removes public debate from the process of changing the very foundations of our government.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...



Actually, almost all of our founders did think America would eventually span all of north America. But what they could not foresee was the complexities of a modern society, and a modern economy. The document was written to govern an 18th century agrarian society. Not a post-industrial 21st century society. Some of the ideas of the constitution will be valid forever, some do not fit our modern needs.
 
Frodly said:
Actually, almost all of our founders did think America would eventually span all of north America. But what they could not foresee was the complexities of a modern society, and a modern economy. The document was written to govern an 18th century agrarian society. Not a post-industrial 21st century society. Some of the ideas of the constitution will be valid forever, some do not fit our modern needs.
Click to expand...

Which is why they included an amendment process.
 
other said:
which ones? (that haven't already been amended)
Click to expand...

Just as guess, I'll take medical insurance as a right. Gas in every car. Obama will pay my mortgage.
 
Psychoclown said:
1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 have all been effectively enacted, without being official ammendments to the Constitution. Mostly through court rulings that "interpreted" the Constitution in a way that was not entirely consistent with original intent. That's why no one has felt the need to push through amendments. Why bother when activist courts enact the changes? This also points to why no one worries about number eight on your list. We tend to use the courts to update or reinvent our Constitution. If we had a court that wasn't so willing to ignore or reinterpret original intent, then we'd have more need for amendments and might have more enacted. The fact is the amendment process is largely ignored with the exception of a few hot button issues that have no chance of passing (gay marriage, flag burning, ect).
Click to expand...

But that's exactly my point. The Supreme Court abandoned an originalist interpretation of the Constitution (and the American people went along with it) BECAUSE of the cumbersome amendment process.

If the amendment process was easier, I doubt you'd see nearly as much judicial activism. But we have to have one or the other...an easier amendment process, or an active judiciary. Otherwise very little would ever change from the way the government operated in 1789, which was obviously a very different world from the one we now inhabit.
 
Kandahar said:
...one that is too difficult and unwieldy to be of much use in the modern world.
Click to expand...

So get an amendment to change it.... because that is the only way you will ever change.
 
Kandahar said:
...one that is too difficult and unwieldy to be of much use in the modern world.
Click to expand...

Yet it's still the one which is there, even if that were true.

(It's supposed to be difficult, by the way.)
 
Harshaw said:
Yet it's still the one which is there, even if that were true.

(It's supposed to be difficult, by the way.)
Click to expand...

Here is the rub.... the constitution is too hard to amend and that keeps us from making free health care, and any other handout we can think of a right..... see? The constitution is out dated and needs to be changed.
 
Kandahar said:
But that's exactly my point. The Supreme Court abandoned an originalist interpretation of the Constitution (and the American people went along with it) BECAUSE of the cumbersome amendment process.
Click to expand...

At the time, many americans were against judicial review, but the Justices are not subject to people's opinions. And the adoption of judicial review was a result of Chief Justice Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison--it had nothing to do with the perception that it is too difficult to amend the constitution.

Kandahar said:
If the amendment process was easier, I doubt you'd see nearly as much judicial activism. But we have to have one or the other...an easier amendment process, or an active judiciary. Otherwise very little would ever change from the way the government operated in 1789, which was obviously a very different world from the one we now inhabit.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Not if people actually hold the president accountable for appointing crap justices--and congress for confirming them. note: activists judges tend to be liberal (living, breathing constitution, etc).
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Yet it's still the one which is there, even if that were true.

(It's supposed to be difficult, by the way.)
Click to expand...

It's supposed to be difficult enough that people don't change it for stupid reasons based on whatever direction the wind is currently blowing. But I highly doubt the Founding Fathers predicted that we would use their Constitution for 220 years and only change it 17 times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom