• 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
the makeout hobo said:
So you think for everything even remotely constitution related, we should go off Madison alone?
Click to expand...
I believe my argument for original intent is quite clear.
If you'd like to comment on it directly, be my guest.
 
Alex Libman said:
No scientist is all-knowing, but some economic theories seem to hold true every single time they're tested.
Click to expand...

Very few of them. Certainly not the ones you espouse. At any rate, the subject of this thread is the Constitution - not the economy - which makes your Ayn Rand turds completely irrelevant as usual.
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
Please repost that argument
Click to expand...
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.
 
Alex Libman said:
No scientist is all-knowing, but some economic theories seem to hold true every single time they're tested.
Click to expand...

And those would be? I do find Das Kapital interesting and profitiable.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who would you consider "the people who wrote the constitution"
 
the makeout hobo said:
Who would you consider "the people who wrote the constitution"
Click to expand...
That would be the group of people that wrote the Constitution.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention]Philadelphia Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Has it escaped your notice that the US is also the freest country in the world and has the best standard of living? I wonder if the two go hand in hand.
 
Kandahar said:
Very few of them. Certainly not the ones you espouse. At any rate, the subject of this thread is the Constitution - not the economy - which makes your Ayn Rand turds completely irrelevant as usual.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep mentioning Ayn Rand? I'm not married to her you know. Sure, she was a great influence, but I'm more in the Murray Rothbard / Patri Friedman camp philosophically, and the last politician I supported was Ron Paul. Now there's the greatest champion the U.S. Constitution has had in 100 years!


winston53660 said:
And those would be?
Click to expand...

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Etc.


winston53660 said:
I do find Das Kapital interesting and profitiable.
Click to expand...

Das Kapital is actually gibberish. People only pretend to understand it. ;)
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
No, he doesn't count, he didn't write the constitution, remember?
Click to expand...

I like Thomas Jefferson. I agree with a lot of what he says. I like the theory of everything expiring in 20 years. Though in my previous post, I put the difficulties of doing so. But the reason behind wanting to do it is sound. It just means we have to be further vigilant.
 
Ikari said:
I like Thomas Jefferson. I agree with a lot of what he says. I like the theory of everything expiring in 20 years. Though in my previous post, I put the difficulties of doing so. But the reason behind wanting to do it is sound. It just means we have to be further vigilant.
Click to expand...

I think every two generations or so makes more sense, but I'm a strong believer in generational theories.
 
Goobieman said:
Were you going to address my position on the topic or go off on a tangent?
Click to expand...

That his opinion doesn't matter because he wasn't in Philidelphia? Sure, but I ask that you answer mine. I think limiting our framework to what a few people decided a few hundred years ago is limiting, and gives us no room to change with new technology. I also posit that they didn't all always agree on what things meant.
 
the makeout hobo said:
That his opinion doesn't matter because he wasn't in Philidelphia? Sure, but I ask that you answer mine. I think limiting our framework to what a few people decided a few hundred years ago is limiting, and gives us no room to change with new technology. I also posit that they didn't all always agree on what things meant.
Click to expand...

But we do have the means to change with new technology.... the amendment process.... we can change the Constitution if there is enough reason and support to do so.
 
the makeout hobo said:
That his opinion doesn't matter because he wasn't in Philidelphia?
Click to expand...
No... the position that I re-posted for you, my positon on the topic:

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.

Were you going to address my position on the topic or go off on a tangent?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Whats your thoughts on Jefferson's argument about rewriting the constitution.
Click to expand...

A new constitutional convention is an option, but it hasn't happened because apparently it has never been a necessity.

Jefferson often used dramatic language, and he may have even believed sincerely in what he wrote at that time (in 1789), but he did not actually move to replace the constitution 19 years after it's ratification, did he? Nope, he was the president of the united states at that time. I'd say that counts as a stamp of approval.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
No... the position that I re-posted for you, my positon on the topic:

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.

Were you going to address my position on the topic or go off on a tangent?
Click to expand...

What makes you think they necessarily had all the answers, and were right to such a great degree? I believe we should rewrite the constitution every few decades.
 
the makeout hobo said:
What makes you think they necessarily had all the answers, and were right to such a great degree?
Click to expand...
What makes you think I think that?
How did you infer that from my post?

I believe we should rewrite the constitution every few decades.
Click to expand...
There's a process for that. Get busy.
 
the makeout hobo said:
What makes you think they necessarily had all the answers, and were right to such a great degree? I believe we should rewrite the constitution every few decades.
Click to expand...

Then by all means get enough people together that feel the same and get an amendment passed to that effect.
 
Goobieman said:
What makes you think I think that?
How did you infer that from my post?


There's a process for that. Get busy.
Click to expand...

Do you think we should have periodic rewritings, or a timed-out constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom