• 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
Goshin said:
The rifleman is not irrelevant to modern warfare; ultimately, when the bombers and cruise missles have stopped flying, all ground is taken and held by the rifleman. Bombers, missles and so on can be countered to a large degree by 4th Generation Warfare methods. The existence of a citizen militia is a deterrent to tyranny and invasion still. The Afgani Mujahadeen kept the Russian Army in a mess for many years with little more than rifles, a few support weapons, and guerilla tactics.

G.
Click to expand...

Well stated... all we need to do is to look at Vietnam as a prime example of this.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Roe v Wade is an example.
Click to expand...

The decision in Roe v. Wade actually hid behind the strict letter of the constitution to avoid dealing with the trickier question of when life begins. Their ruling rested on the argument that the question of whether a fetus is alive or not is constitutionally outside of their sphere of authority to decide. However, the constitution defines a citizen very clearly as a person who is born or naturalized into the US. Since a fetus has been neither, it is not constitutionally protected. So, they ruled that constitutionally they can look only at the rights of the mother, which clearly are being infringed upon without due process.

How can you feel that that was judicial activism? It's almost the opposite of judicial activism... Instead of rule on the substance of the issue they just stuck to a narrow interpretation of the letter of the law in the constitution. That's what you say you want them to do, right?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Me too -- that he was looking for information.
Click to expand...

Fine, whatever, *I* am making that point then. How do you claim to be able to discern the "original intent," when some of the ratifiers wrote things that were directly at odds with one another, and the vast majority wrote nothing at all?
 
Kandahar said:
Fine, whatever, *I* am making that point then. How do you claim to be able to discern the "original intent," when some of the ratifiers wrote things that were directly at odds with one another, and the vast majority wrote nothing at all?
Click to expand...
As I said, and as no one has commented:

The people that wrote the constitution wrote what they wrote for good reason. As such, their intent matters considerably as their the logic and reasoning is the basis for the structure of the document and the context for everything in it.

The exact details of this do not have to have universal acceptance among the people that put the Constitution together for that to stand.
 
Goobieman said:
As I said, and as no one has commented:

The people that wrote the constitution wrote what they wrote for good reason. As such, their intent matters considerably as their the logic and reasoning is the basis for the structure of the document and the context for everything in it.

The exact details of this do not have to have universal acceptance among the people that put the Constitution together for that to stand.
Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is that they put it together yes and their intent maters but the fact that they were in direct opposition regarding many issues shows that the 'original' intent might have been subjective to each person. Let's not kid ourselves. The constitution isn't exactly the most black & white document there is.
 
Hatuey said:
Let's not kid ourselves. The constitution isn't exactly the most black & white document there is.
Click to expand...
The most? Of course not.
But, mostly so; those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
 
Goobieman said:
The most? Of course not.
But, mostly so; those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
Click to expand...

Consider all the ways that scholars and judges have interpreted the same parts of the constitution through the ages. I think the very fact that Americans have seldom agreed on the intent behind so many amendments show that 'original intent' is at the most something which is up for debate and not set in stone.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Consider all the ways that scholars and judges have interpreted the same parts of the constitution.
Click to expand...
I did:
...those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
 
Goobieman said:
I did:
...those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
Click to expand...

Sorry - read the rest - clicked submit early.
 
Goobieman said:
I did:
...those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
Click to expand...

That is the essence of "living, breathing Constitution" theory, yes.
 
Harshaw said:
That is the essence of "living, breathing Constitution" theory, yes.
Click to expand...
Clearly.
And one has to wonder -- why?
If their ideas are SO good, they should not have any trouble mustering the support necessary to make the change.
 
Kandahar said:
Fine, whatever, *I* am making that point then. How do you claim to be able to discern the "original intent," when some of the ratifiers wrote things that were directly at odds with one another, and the vast majority wrote nothing at all?
Click to expand...

You read what they wrote.

BOTH Alexander Hamilton and James Madison stated that the Constitution granted SPECIFIC and ENUMERATED powers to Congress, beyond which the Congress was not permitted to trespass.

The silly idea of the socialists that the "General Welfare" clause is a blank check has no merit.
 
Goobieman said:
I did:
...those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
Click to expand...

Because what they want to do can't pass the Amendming process, so they cheat.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The silly idea of the socialists that the "General Welfare" clause is a blank check has no merit.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Goobieman said:
As I said, and as no one has commented:

The people that wrote the constitution wrote what they wrote for good reason. As such, their intent matters considerably as their the logic and reasoning is the basis for the structure of the document and the context for everything in it.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to prove that it's important. I asked HOW you plan to determine that.

Goobieman said:
The exact details of this do not have to have universal acceptance among the people that put the Constitution together for that to stand.
Click to expand...

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? No elected official is under any obligation to explain WHY they vote for anything.

And once again, why would the Founding Fathers include phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" if they wanted us to use THEIR interpretation, and if there was some consensus among them what that term meant? Why not just spell it out? For that matter, why not just explicitly state in the Constitution that it should be followed with the original intent in mind?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You read what they wrote.

BOTH Alexander Hamilton and James Madison stated that the Constitution granted SPECIFIC and ENUMERATED powers to Congress, beyond which the Congress was not permitted to trespass.
Click to expand...

And are Alexander Hamilton and James Madison an accurate representation of anyone other than Alexander Hamilton and James Madison? Other people signed the Constitution who DON'T appear on money, you know. ;)

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The silly idea of the socialists that the "General Welfare" clause is a blank check has no merit.
Click to expand...

And the silly idea of the originalists that the existence of the Ninth Amendment isn't an explicit rebuke of that view has no merit.
 
Kandahar said:
For that matter, why not just explicitly state in the Constitution that it should be followed with the original intent in mind?
Click to expand...

They did so, by writing it down.
 
Kandahar said:
And the silly idea of the originalists that the existence of the Ninth Amendment isn't an explicit rebuke of that view has no merit.
Click to expand...

"Rebuke" of what?
 
Harshaw said:
They did so, by writing it down.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Founding Fathers expected future generations to follow their original intent. You'd think that with so many brilliant legal minds, someone might have thought to write that down if it was the consensus view. Kind of an important point to forget.
 
Harshaw said:
"Rebuke" of what?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Founding Fathers expected future generations to follow their original intent. You'd think that with so many brilliant legal minds, someone might have thought to write that down if it was the consensus view. Kind of an important point to forget.
Click to expand...

Dude, the whole point of a written constitution in the first place is to solidify things.

(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.)
 
Harshaw said:
Dude, the whole point of a written constitution in the first place is to solidify things.
Click to expand...

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.

Harshaw said:
(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.)
Click to expand...

So it doesn't say either way. And therefore its absence is open to interpretation. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom