• 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
other said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to the expansion of government power since the Civil War (and especially since the Great Depression) based on activist interpretations of the Constitution, not judicial review in general.

other said:
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).
Click to expand...

Every justice on the Supreme Court - and every federal judge in the United States - is an "activist" compared to what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Liberal AND conservative.

Furthermore, whether or not people "hold the president accountable for appointing crap justices" does not change the fact that our government would still be based on the world of 1789, if you want to preserve the cumbersome amendment process AND use an originalist interpretation.
 
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.

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...

I disagree that the amendment process is overly cumbersome, at least to the point where it makes passing amendments impossible. The last major amendment passed was probably the 22nd (though the 24th was also pretty important, but it dealt with efforts to circumvent the 15th, so it wasn't a new issue). And its not surprising there weren't any major changes early on in our nation's history since the Constitution was a new document. So from 1865 to 1951, a timespan of 86 years, we passed ten amendments. That's an average of better than one per decade. The rate improves if you add in the last 5 "minor" amendments. We get 15 amendements in 127 years (1865 - 1992) During that time span, our nation was also growing. In 1865 there were 36 states. In 1951 there were 48 states.

It is difficult to pass an amendment, but not impossibly so. History shows that. The reason we don't have more amendments is activist courts have usurped the power that was given to the people through the amendment proceedure and taken it for themselves through activist rulings that ignore the intent of the Constitution.

I will say, I'm not entirely opposed to making amendments slightly easier to pass, but I cannot agree that the current process is cumbersome to the point of impossible.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt they had any particular number of changes in mind.
 
Kandahar said:
Every justice on the Supreme Court - and every federal judge in the United States - is an "activist" compared to what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Liberal AND conservative.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's a problem, but conservative justices tend more toward originalism, which is not activism.

Kandahar said:
Furthermore, whether or not people "hold the president accountable for appointing crap justices" does not change the fact that our government would still be based on the world of 1789, if you want to preserve the cumbersome amendment process AND use an originalist interpretation.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't...the last amendment was ratified in 1992.
 
Kandahar said:
Can't. See above re: the amendment process being too difficult.



Huh?
Click to expand...

What you are trying to say is that there is no support to change the amendment process.
 
Kandahar said:
Furthermore, whether or not people "hold the president accountable for appointing crap justices" does not change the fact that our government would still be based on the world of 1789, if you want to preserve the cumbersome amendment process AND use an originalist interpretation.
Click to expand...

What, in your estimation, is different about the world of today which makes the originalist view of the Constitution unworkable?
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Translation:
It should be easy to change when its a change I support, and hard to change when its something I poopse.

:doh
 
Psychoclown said:
I disagree that the amendment process is overly cumbersome, at least to the point where it makes passing amendments impossible. The last major amendment passed was probably the 22nd (though the 24th was also pretty important, but it dealt with efforts to circumvent the 15th, so it wasn't a new issue). And its not surprising there weren't any major changes early on in our nation's history since the Constitution was a new document. So from 1865 to 1951, a timespan of 86 years, we passed ten amendments. That's an average of better than one per decade. The rate improves if you add in the last 5 "minor" amendments. We get 15 amendements in 127 years (1865 - 1992) During that time span, our nation was also growing. In 1865 there were 36 states. In 1951 there were 48 states.

It is difficult to pass an amendment, but not impossibly so. History shows that. The reason we don't have more amendments is activist courts have usurped the power that was given to the people through the amendment proceedure and taken it for themselves through activist rulings that ignore the intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look at all the amendments passed since the Bill of Rights was enacted. How many of them would you consider to be major changes? By my (admittedly subjective) count, the major changes were Amendments #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, and #19. That's only six significant changes to the way our government fundamentally operates since it was created...and three of those six were passed at the barrel of a gun. Most of the other amendments have just been tweaks around the edges...and there aren't even very many of those.

Psychoclown said:
I will say, I'm not entirely opposed to making amendments slightly easier to pass, but I cannot agree that the current process is cumbersome to the point of impossible.
Click to expand...

Right now the procedure is for 2/3 of each house of Congress to vote for an amendment, then for 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify it. This is far, far too strict IMO.

I would be more inclined to support something along the lines of a 2/3 majority in each house of Congress and a simple majority of state legislatures. That seems much more reasonable.
 
What's the point of having a Constitution if we don't follow it in letter and spirit?
 
Ethereal said:
What's the point of having a Constitution if we don't follow it in letter and spirit?
Click to expand...
No reason whatsoever, we could all just run around and do what we want. Like maybe kill people at random, I mean what the hell it's not murder if I say it isn't. :cool:
 
MyOwnDrum said:
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.
Click to expand...

Life, liberty, and property are timeless concepts, whether it's 1776 or 2009.
 
Ethereal said:
Life, liberty, and property are timeless concepts, whether it's 1776 or 2009.
Click to expand...
Hell no, the librules want a living constitution, one that everyone can interpret the way they want. Let's give it to them. I mean we own all the guns, right? :mrgreen:
 
Harshaw said:
What, in your estimation, is different about the world of today which makes the originalist view of the Constitution unworkable?
Click to expand...
Well for one thing, that old document was written by white, rich, bigotted, homophobes who beat slaves and plotted against the crown. Why should we follow them?
 
Psychoclown said:
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?
Click to expand...

Of course is does.

But reading the 2nd amendment through a keyhole is asinine.

The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention fully-automatic weapons.

So, Justice Psychoclown, explain how states can ban kiddie porn and not weapons they deem contrary to public safety.
 
hazlnut said:
Of course is does.

But reading the 2nd amendment through a keyhole is asinine.

The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention fully-automatic weapons.

So, Justice Psychoclown, explain how states can ban kiddie porn and not weapons they deem contrary to public safety.
Click to expand...
Name a fire arm that isn't contrary to public safety (the way you mean it).
 
hazlnut said:
Of course is does.

But reading the 2nd amendment through a keyhole is asinine.

The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention fully-automatic weapons.

So, Justice Psychoclown, explain how states can ban kiddie porn and not weapons they deem contrary to public safety.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment doesn't mention the internet. Better outlaw the internet.
 
hazlnut said:
Of course is does.

But reading the 2nd amendment through a keyhole is asinine.

The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention fully-automatic weapons.

So, Justice Psychoclown, explain how states can ban kiddie porn and not weapons they deem contrary to public safety.
Click to expand...

It's not like it's terribly difficult to differentiate the two in plain-language terms.

Kiddie porn isn't "speech." Video porn, at least, isn't "the press."

But fully-auto weapons are "arms."
 
other said:
that is a violation of the child's rights.
Click to expand...

And, that's an entirely different issue. States can ban the creation of kiddie porn for perfectly valid reasons having nothing whatever to do with the 1st Amendment.

Note that drawings, for example, which involved no actual children do not fall under kiddie porn bans (though I'm sure some zealous prosecutor somewhere has tried).
 
hazlnut said:
Of course is does.

But reading the 2nd amendment through a keyhole is asinine.

The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention fully-automatic weapons.

So, Justice Psychoclown, explain how states can ban kiddie porn and not weapons they deem contrary to public safety.
Click to expand...

Very simple. In order to create kiddie porn, you must violate the rights of a child. My owning a gun does not violate anyone's rights.
 
Harshaw said:
And, that's an entirely different issue. States can ban the creation of kiddie porn for perfectly valid reasons having nothing whatever to do with the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

I know, they can ban it because it violates the child's rights... therefore k porn isn't a protected right (1st or any other). (nor is it "speech" or "press" as you pointed out)

Harshaw said:
Note that drawings, for example, which involved no actual children do not fall under kiddie porn bans (though I'm sure some zealous prosecutor somewhere has tried).
Click to expand...

yes, because drawings have no rights.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
The First Amendment doesn't mention the internet. Better outlaw the internet.
Click to expand...
It doesn't mention hazlnut either, so he should shutup. :lol:
 
other said:
I know, they can ban it because it violates the child's rights... therefore k porn isn't a protected right (1st or any other). (nor is it "speech" or "press" as you pointed out)



yes, because drawings have no rights.
Click to expand...

Correct, and banning drawn kiddie porn would be 1st Amendment issue. But as I said, to my knowledge, it isn't illegal anywhere, nor would such a ban likely survive a 1st Amendment challenge.
 
Harshaw said:
Note that drawings, for example, which involved no actual children do not fall under kiddie porn bans (though I'm sure some zealous prosecutor somewhere has tried).
Click to expand...

Look up the case of Jock Sturges. The FBI took all his equipment negatives and his life for making images of nudist families when he came back from France on the airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom