• 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
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.

Yeah, that's what I said, ie, the socialists are full of ****.
 
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.

So it doesn't say either way. And therefore its absence is open to interpretation. :roll:

Even in the days of the Founders, the accepted practice of interpretation of law was 1st) look to the actual plain meaning of the words, and then 2nd) if it can't be determined from that, go on to the intent of the creators of the law. Only after exhausting that do you go on to other means of interpretation. That's the standard of interpretation of law still today.
 
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.

Are you saying that the 9th Amendment refutes the entire idea of originalist interpretation?
 
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?

yes, your argument makes perfect sense.

I mean, clearly the vast overwhelming majority of the legislators that ratified the Constitution CLEARLY wanted a complete blank check and a totally free hand, that's why they voted for a Constitution that in the simplest interpretation (ie, taking the meanings of the actual words in the Constitution itself) says that the powers of government will be extremely limited to only carefully drawn and exceptionally limited areas.

That's perfectly clear that they wanted a socailsit paradise like Cuba and Cambodia, but were too stupid to say so.

Give us a break. The people that wrote the Constitution made it perfectly clear what was meant, and it is more than perfectly clear that the people of the United States DID NOT want a totalitarian thieving government that would steal from them. So clearly the original intent of the authors of the Constitution was to prevent exactly the circumstances your Messiah is setting us up for right now.
 
Even in the days of the Founders, the accepted practice of interpretation of law was 1st) look to the actual plain meaning of the words, and then 2nd) if it can't be determined from that, go on to the intent of the creators of the law. Only after exhausting that do you go on to other means of interpretation. That's the standard of interpretation of law still today.

Uhh I don't know what Supreme Court YOU have been looking at, but original intent is HARDLY the standard of interpretation of law used today... :confused:
 
Last edited:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Founding Fathers expected future generations to follow their original intent.

Of course not.

The Founding Fathers fully expected that the day after they died, down would become up, left would become backwards (that DID happen), and in would mean out.

That's why they wrote a specific process to change the Constitution, because clearly they knew that since the document had no meaning they had to make it absolutely almost impossible to change it.

Then again, I'm pretty sure not one of those men ever tried to build a house out of cooked spaghetti, which is what you're saying they did with the Constitution.

I just love the silly arguments you people put forth to lie about the meaning of the Constitution and what the people who wrote it thought.
 
Uhh I don't know what Supreme Court YOU have been looking at, but original intent is HARDLY the standard of interpretation of law used today...:confused:

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. :shrug:
 
yes, your argument makes perfect sense.

I notice that you didn't actually refute it, you just used a lot of emotional hyperbole.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I mean, clearly the vast overwhelming majority of the legislators that ratified the Constitution CLEARLY wanted a complete blank check and a totally free hand,

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.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
that's why they voted for a Constitution that in the simplest interpretation (ie, taking the meanings of the actual words in the Constitution itself) says that the powers of government will be extremely limited to only carefully drawn and exceptionally limited areas.

And why should we USE the original meaning? That's what this discussion is about. Try to keep up. :2wave:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That's perfectly clear that they wanted a socailsit paradise like Cuba and Cambodia, but were too stupid to say so.

The Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government, and prevents cruel and unusual punishment. So that takes care of this infantile comparison. Next?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Give us a break. The people that wrote the Constitution made it perfectly clear what was meant, and it is more than perfectly clear that the people of the United States DID NOT want a totalitarian thieving government that would steal from them.

And yet they gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Hmm.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So clearly the original intent of the authors of the Constitution was to prevent exactly the circumstances your Messiah is setting us up for right now.

Your moronic partisan hackery still does not answer the question of why we should care about original intent at all.
 
(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.)

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.

I guess they couldn't foresee just how ignorant their descendants would become, and how dishonest.
 
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. :shrug:

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. ;)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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. :roll: I didn't say anything about "our Supreme Court," so yeah, it's a complete red herring.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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:
If you think that's what I said, you obviously didn't follow what I wrote. :roll: 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. :confused:
 
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. :confused:

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:
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.

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.

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.


That's what this discussion is about. Try to keep up. :2wave:

Yeah, we past that point already.

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

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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Ending slavery was a good idea.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

So was giving women the right to vote.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
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.
That's far superior than the notion that it means whatever you want it to mean, which is the central tenet of liberalism.
 

Wow your complete inability to grasp the entire point of that post is almost retarded. Did you read the first sentence? But since you did bring them up :

What did I say? :

The first that a good idea is necessarily popular with people in Congress

Your source :

On January 9, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson announced his support of the amendment. The next day, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the amendment, but the Senate refused to debate it until October. When the Senate voted on the Amendment in October, it failed by three votes.[1]

In response, the National Woman's Party urged citizens to vote against anti-suffrage Senators up for reelection in the 1918 midterm elections. Following those elections, most members of Congress were pro-suffrage. On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment by a vote of 304 to 89 and the Senate followed suit on June 4, by a vote of 56 to 25.[2]

On August 18, 1920, the Tennessee General Assembly, by a one-vote margin became the thirty-sixth state legislature to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment, making it a part of the U.S. Constitution. On August 26, 1920, Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified the amendment's adoption

This all supports my statement that a 'good idea' is not necessarily one that is popularly supported. Specially when it's getting passed mostly on 1-3 vote margins.

As far as slavery goes, we had to have a civil war before the 13th amendment was thought of and passed. If that doesn't say that it would have never been added to the constitution because it would have become immediately unpopular with the citizens of some parts of the U.S. I don't know what should. Do you think a 13th amendment would have been possible without a civil war?
 
Last edited:
Wow your complete inability to grasp the entire point of that post is almost retarded. Did you read the first sentence? But since you did bring them up :

What did I say? :



Your source :



This all supports my statement that a 'good idea' is not necessarily one that is popularly supported. Specially when it's getting passed mostly on 1-3 vote margins.

As far as slavery goes, we had to have a civil war before the 13th amendment was thought of and passed. If that doesn't say that it would have never been added to the constitution because it would have become immediately unpopular with the citizens of some parts of the U.S. I don't know what should. Do you think a 13th amendment would have been possible without a civil war?
The Constitution is what it is, get over yourself. It does not mean what you wished it would mean either.
 
Back
Top Bottom