• 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

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,792
Reaction score
1,475
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In another thread, I saw someone accuse libertarians of always holding up the oringial intent of the Constitution as something that should be followed, but we don't say why original intent is the proper way to view the Constitution. So I thought it would make a good poll and possibly a good discussion.

So does the original intent of the founding father's matter anymore? Or has the world moved so far beyond the late 18th century that what the founding father's thought and meant when writing the Constitution is no longer worth considering? Or is it somewhere in the middle?
 
In another thread, I saw someone accuse libertarians of always holding up the oringial intent of the Constitution as something that should be followed, but we don't say why original intent is the proper way to view the Constitution. So I thought it would make a good poll and possibly a good discussion.

So does the original intent of the founding father's matter anymore? Or has the world moved so far beyond the late 18th century that what the founding father's thought and meant when writing the Constitution is no longer worth considering? Or is it somewhere in the middle?



I think there is some merit to both ideas. It is absolutely worth discussing the original intents of the founders. It is just sometimes difficult to discern, as the founders were not a collection of entirely like minded individuals. Many had vast differences in their views for an ideal america. But we should still do our best to discern those intentions, and take them into account when applicable.

With that said, the country has changed beyond all recognition from that time. The constitution was written to govern an 18th century agrarian society. Some of the ideas of the constitution are universal, but enough has changed that I do not think it is wise to govern this country using a strict originalist interpretation of the constitution.
 
I think there is some merit to both ideas. It is absolutely worth discussing the original intents of the founders. It is just sometimes difficult to discern, as the founders were not a collection of entirely like minded individuals. Many had vast differences in their views for an ideal america. But we should still do our best to discern those intentions, and take them into account when applicable.

With that said, the country has changed beyond all recognition from that time. The constitution was written to govern an 18th century agrarian society. Some of the ideas of the constitution are universal, but enough has changed that I do not think it is wise to govern this country using a strict originalist interpretation of the constitution.

Very true the founding fathers were not a monolithic entity that held conforming views. Just look at the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that were written during the ratification process as one example. That said though, I think in most cases its quite possible to discern what their intent and reasoning was for writing the Constitution as they did.

I'm curious though how you determine which parts are universal and which parts or original intents can be disregarded because they only apply to 18th century agrarian society?
 
I personally would like to see the threshold for amendment lowered, maybe to 60 percent of the states or something.
 
The constitution should be made to work in a changing world to my mind. Think of it as a rough framework that we use as a guide.
 
Define Despotic, in your context here?
A despotic government is one that is not constrained by clearly defined laws and agreed limitations, such as those found in a binding constitution. A constitution in such a regime is a propaganda insturment to be displayed to a credulous world and little more.

My, as always, insightful opinion is that this is how the current leadership in the House, Senate and Presidency sees the Constitution of the United States. I leave it to you to determine how this would define those worthies.
 
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.
 
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.
 
It worked great until greedy life long politicians came into the picture.

Leave the Constitution alone. I was made difficult to amend for a reason.
 
Yes, and though difficult to amend, it CAN BE AMENDED if it is truly necessary. We don't live in a static world, but neither did the people of the 18th century; it is foolish to think that they did not realize this.

They provided a way to alter the document if necessary, and to interpret the constitution loose or without regard to the original intent is to render it worthless (or as oftencold mentioned, a tool for propagandists). This same standard applies to all contracts--why should one so important as the constitution be any different--especially considering the fact that it is designed to accomodate for changes where necessary?
 
I voted no. Why? Because every person and their mother has a different version of the original intent of the Founders. Anyone that says that they know the original intent is BSing (unless they have a time machine behind them).
 
Yes, and though difficult to amend, it CAN BE AMENDED if it is truly necessary. We don't live in a static world, but neither did the people of the 18th century; it is foolish to think that they did not realize this.

They provided a way to alter the document if necessary, and to interpret the constitution loose or without regard to the original intent is to render it worthless (or as oftencold mentioned, a tool for propagandists). This same standard applies to all contracts--why should one so important as the constitution be any different--especially considering the fact that it is designed to accomodate for changes where necessary?

I agree.

If our politicians put as much energy into supporting and strengthening the Constitution as they do trying to circumvent it, imagine how strong the US it's people would be.
 
I voted no. Why? Because every person and their mother has a different version of the original intent of the Founders. Anyone that says that they know the original intent is BSing (unless they have a time machine behind them).

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
OMG, let's drag out the ole slavery argument to trash the entire Constitution from A to Z. It also allows for you to vote for you representative, which I now regret and wish YOU couldn't. Let's all get stupid over this thread and drag it into the gutter, because liberals can't justify themselves without bringing blacks and slavery into it.

The first President was a rich, white, masonic, slave owner, and Thomas Jefferson screwed a black woman. Ban that Constitution, ban it at once I say!!!!!!
 
In another thread, I saw someone accuse libertarians of always holding up the oringial intent of the Constitution as something that should be followed, but we don't say why original intent is the proper way to view the Constitution. So I thought it would make a good poll and possibly a good discussion.
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.

If you dont like what they wrote and why they wrote it, or if you think someting in it doesnt 'work' today, then change it.
 
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.
IIRC, this was rectified by the 13th amendment.
 
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 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.

Goobieman said:
If you dont like what they wrote and why they wrote it, or if you think someting in it doesnt 'work' today, then change it.

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.
 
IIRC, this was rectified by the 13th amendment.

AND the "original intent" in this case was not wholly in favor of slavery... the 3/5 compromise was made as a concession to get southern states into the union. If all those at the convention favored slavery, why would they need a compromise? Furthermore, steps toward at least regulating the practice were made, as an agreement was also made to end the importation of slaves early in the next century.
 
The Founding Fathers were not all-knowing gods.
My statement does not depend on them being all-knowing gods.
Otherwise, your statement here doesn't in any way negate, or even addess, what I said.

They were human beings who wrote a document that worked for THEIR society. It's changed a bit in the 200+ years since then.
If you dont like what they wrote and why they wrote it, or if you think someting in it doesnt 'work' today, then change it.

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.
Irrelevant. The procedure is there. Use it.
If what you want to do is such a good idea, the necessary support for the change should be easy to get.
 
If you dont like what they wrote and why they wrote it, or if you think someting in it doesnt 'work' today, then change it.

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.

Goobieman said:
Irrelevant. The procedure is there. Use it.
If what you want to do is such a good idea, the necessary support for the change should be easy to get.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

It works the same mathematically be it 13 or 50. Having a large majority be in agreement to change the very Constitution is a really good idea in any time.

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. :roll:

It is not easy, and yet it does get done.

Don't think he was trying to make it sound easy.

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?

A ridicules fallacy that has no bearing, nice.
 
It works the same mathematically be it 13 or 50. Having a large majority be in agreement to change the very Constitution is a really good idea in any time.

It is not easy, and yet it does get done.

Don't think he was trying to make it sound easy.

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 (many of them minor) every 13 years.

Blackdog said:
A ridicules fallacy that has no bearing, nice.

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
No, I didn't. I said that was irrelevant.

YOU, however, did completely ignore:
My statement does not depend on them being all-knowing gods.
Otherwise, your statement here doesn't in any way negate, or even addess, what I said.

That's ridiculous.
No, its not. The threshold necessary to change the Constitution is intentionally high so that changes are not made will-nilly, and, given that the Constitution applies to the entire country, the changes that ARE made have substantial support across the entire country. It is SUPPOSED to be diffcult to change, because a constitution that can be changed at a whim is meaningless.

If you understood the logic and reasoning of the people that wrote the document, you'd understand this.

Beyond that -- you're whinng because changing the Constitution "too hard".
Its only "too hard' if your proposed change isn't goood enough to garner sufficient support. If your idea is good enough, then getting the support to change is should not be difficult at all.

Tell us -- what would YOU have as the amendment process, and why?

If you'd actually READ the constitution...
Irony so thick, you need a chainsaw to cut it...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom