• 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!

How interpretation has weakened our Constitution

MeThePeople said:
As I read through several posts I was not amazed by the level of interpretation by people to make the Constitution mean what they want it to say.
...
PLEASE READ the Constitution from first word to last so we can save this American Nation
Click to expand...
I have faced this same frustration so often. I look forward to the proofs of your statement to follow... ;)

In addition to the Preamble, I often spend a good deal of time with Art. I, Section 8, clause1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...
The General Welfare and the Common Defense are given equal billing (along with paying the Debts). People like to ignore that provision, just like the first half of the Second Amendment, as well as the 9th Amendment.

I am a Constitutionalist (it's in my name), but that does not mean I'm an "originalist". The founders were not "originalists", but saw the document as a living document to be given life in interpretation as times, circumstances, and conditions changed. They were visionaries, but not omniscient.

Now I'm going to see how the arguments develop. My kinda thread!
 
Vadinho said:
Tommy boy was in France when the constitution was written. He did not write it.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is already made up!
 
celticwar17 said:
"in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Problem is these are all extremely subjective subjects.... In my opinion, origonalism and taking the constitution literal is the best, most objective way of making the Constitution strong. If people do not like the originalist/literal interpretation... they should draft an amendment that makes it absolutely clear what they want to change.

I think the 10th amendment is the one that is the most forgotten, and one should be enforced more.
Click to expand...

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” -- Thomas Jefferson
 
MeThePeople said:
The strength of MY constitution is being diminished by the SCOTUS in their every interpretation to satisfy the minority groups in this country. THE GENERAL WELFARE it says.
So when one minority group gets it's way then the next minority group says 'hey, what about us, we vote too, for liberals". So then the liberals go find more minority groups to tickle their ears with promises, " make me your representative and I'll give you liberal justices in the supreme court and we will make it your right to do what ever it is you want to do".
AND LOOK AT AMERICA. It isn't a more perfect union. It's divided in so many different ways nothing is getting done.
And now liberalism has ushered in the practice of Sharia law into our country. Its happening in New York.
Muslim communities even have their own 'Religious Patrols' in their neighborhoods, right here in America.
GOOD JOB LIBERALS. I think you people need a good dose of Sharia Law. And your going to receive it due time.
Wait till you see their 'liberal ' position on abortion, homosexuality, adultery and womens clothing.
And you know with the interpretation of the religion clause by the SCOTUS, Sharia law has protection. And oil money keeps it well funded
Click to expand...

OMG. I thought you had a good thread going, and then you had to go and do that. I am so disillusioned.
 
joko104 said:
In the case of Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the Supreme Court ruled that it was overturning the US Constitution, declaring the American Revolution was wrong and that the United States would instead return to British Common law. The declared the United States does NOT have "3 equal branches of government" and completely vetoed democratic and republic forms of government.

Instead, the Supreme Court declared they are all powerful over everything and everyone - and that elections, citizens, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are no more relevant to anything other than what the members of the Supreme Court want as absolute total dictatorial oligarchs. We do not live in a democratic republic form of government. We live in a country ruled by a lifelong judicial oligarchy of absolute power.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the US Constitution was outraged and recognized this was a total coup against the Constitution and government by the Supreme Court, explaining the authors of the Constitution NEVER even considered the federal courts to have ANY role in government or policy other than to decide civil and criminal lawsuits. It was never even considered that courts could 100% erase what the voters, Congress and/or the President did.

Yet today nearly everyone agrees to judicial tyranny and dictatorship - a price paid for having a government of lawyers, by lawyers, for lawyers. Personally, I think lawyers should lose their law license while in any government office requiring they take an oath of office - since their lawyer's duty and oath is the diametric opposite of the oath of public office.
Click to expand...

Actually James Madison was the primary author of the Constitution, if one could say there was one.
 
akyron said:
Except that its been broken for some time now.
Click to expand...

Yes, a little over two years. To understand just how broken it's been since tRump was elected read "The Fifth Risk" by Lewis.
 
The Constitution contains two primary purposes. First, it is structural, laying out the form of government, distribution of the powers and authorities, and enumerating responsibilities. Second, it is aspirational. It sets forth principles in the Preamble in its purpose, and various protections in the Bill of Rights and additional Amendments. (Frankly, the 9th Amendment is the most important of those, and most commonly overlooked.)

The Constitution is not a straight-jacket. While it constrains government power, it is, nonetheless, intended to create a functional government. For 235 years it has worked.

There are "interpretations" of the Constitution that would undercut and even destroy that construction, but they are not the ones now posited by the original poster. "Originalism" is a relatively new approach to Constitutional interpretation, and is, frankly, a fraud.
AMERICANS ARE deeply divided over how to interpret the Constitution. Originalism, the view that judges should interpret the Constitution by discovering the original intent or the original meaning of the text, has a strong hold on the public. Yet the opposing view, that judges ought to interpret the Constitution as a living document and read it in light of contemporary values or an evolving tradition, is also well entrenched in American culture. Not surprisingly, support for originalism is strongest among Tea Party activists, conservatives, and Republicans. Although the vast majority of legal academics are not originalists, the theory of originalism has never been stronger among law professors. Indeed, originalism now has adherents not only among conservative but also liberal legal scholars. There is really only one group in American society that remains largely immune to the lure of originalism: historians.
Click to expand...
New Originalism: A Constitutional Scam (Dissent) "When most historians look closely at originalist arguments, what they usually find is bad history shaped to fit an ideological agenda—what historians derisively call “law office history.”"

The "original intent" of the founders was to create a functional government. To do so, they set forth general principles to govern how the government was to function. Interpretation of its applicability is absolutely required to be situational. That's how every law works, and it was commonly understood by every founder who was a lawyer (which was about 72% of them). They were trained in the "Common Law", and adopted it for the new nation. Common law interpretation has been applied, and was intended to be applied, to the Constitution as a document. It was the same in England, from where the common law was derived.

I am, among other things, a lawyer, historian, and political scientist. I am steeped in the Constitution, its history, its applicability, and its interpretation. That is why I get so frustrated by the facile, uninformed, and partisan statements about what the Constitution was, is, and does. If anyone wants to carry on a substantive discussion, I'm all in. But, you better bring substance.
 
lwf said:
Amendments are part of the Constitution. Do you think other countries have different goals?
Click to expand...

IMO yes, esp. in terms of individual liberty.
 
Irwin Corey said:
Yes, a little over two years. To understand just how broken it's been since tRump was elected read "The Fifth Risk" by Lewis.
Click to expand...

Far longer than that. The election merely exposed establishment on both sides and their incestuous allies in "apolitical" institutions, intel agencies, media, academia, Hollywood, willing to destroy everything for a single moment in time.



Even rats know enough to have a sense of fairness. Not Democrats though.
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
Far longer than that. The election merely exposed establishment on both sides and their incestuous allies in "apolitical" institutions, intel agencies, media, academia, Hollywood, willing to destroy everything for a single moment in time.



Even rats know enough to have a sense of fairness. Not Democrats though.
Click to expand...


read the book, we actually have had a very complex and vibrant Government with highly skilled and dedicated civil servants protecting and serving our needs. It's a myth that our Government is non-functional. Blaming this disfunction on Democrats is partisan tunnel vison.
 
Irwin Corey said:
read the book, we actually have had a very complex and vibrant Government with highly skilled and dedicated civil servants protecting and serving our needs. It's a myth that our Government is non-functional. Blaming this disfunction on Democrats is partisan tunnel vison.
Click to expand...

I can revise that by saying establishment on both sides have reacted predictably to a threat to their power but it is democrats that have reacted counter to law and to a traditional peaceful transition of power.

Reality Winner, Former N.S.A. Translator, Gets More Than 5 Years in Leak

Justice Department Details Case Against Fired Deputy FBI Director McCabe

Clapper lies to congress


"The problem is if you're going to enforce statutes, you have to enforce them fairly and evenly. The law has to apply to everyone. Otherwise, it's not really the law. It's a political weapon."
 
Lursa said:
IMO yes, esp. in terms of individual liberty.
Click to expand...

Some, perhaps. But even countries less free than ours have their own ideas about how to "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." We might disagree on how to go about achieving these goals, but the goals themselves are universal among human societies. That it is almost entirely dependent upon interpretation is the point. Which laws got us there in the past are not necessarily the laws that will get us there in the future.
 
lwf said:
Some, perhaps. But even countries less free than ours have their own ideas about how to "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." We might disagree on how to go about achieving these goals, but the goals themselves are universal among human societies. That it is almost entirely dependent upon interpretation is the point. Which laws got us there in the past are not necessarily the laws that will get us there in the future.
Click to expand...

I cant really agree. There are still countries that deify (or nearly so) their dictators/leaders. Those people get little or no such process and in many cases, dont believe they are entitled to it.

It's a huge cultural difference.
 
celticwar17 said:
"in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Problem is these are all extremely subjective subjects.... In my opinion, origonalism and taking the constitution literal is the best, most objective way of making the Constitution strong. If people do not like the originalist/literal interpretation... they should draft an amendment that makes it absolutely clear what they want to change.

I think the 10th amendment is the one that is the most forgotten, and one should be enforced more.
Click to expand...

The preamble makes it clear that States rights will not ever stand in the way of the greater good. There have been countless SC decisions that have cemented that into history.
 
akyron said:
I can revise that by saying establishment on both sides have reacted predictably to a threat to their power but it is democrats that have reacted counter to law and to a traditional peaceful transition of power.

Reality Winner, Former N.S.A. Translator, Gets More Than 5 Years in Leak

Justice Department Details Case Against Fired Deputy FBI Director McCabe

Clapper lies to congress


"The problem is if you're going to enforce statutes, you have to enforce them fairly and evenly. The law has to apply to everyone. Otherwise, it's not really the law. It's a political weapon."
Click to expand...


It doesn't change the fact that we had one of the best functioning Governments ever … until tRump took over; that's not anti-Republican - tRump is no Republican.
 
iguanaman said:
The preamble makes it clear that States rights will not ever stand in the way of the greater good. There have been countless SC decisions that have cemented that into history.
Click to expand...

And it was amended... and the "greater good" is a highly subjective term or a term that comes with a lot of assumptions.


Also, the constitution is an extremely anti-Utilitarian document, the electoral college is evidence of that., you can't discount the little man... get outta here with that garbage.
 
Last edited:
MeThePeople said:
As I read through several posts I was not amazed by the level of interpretation by people to make the Constitution mean what they want it to say.
The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the intent of the meanaing of the document and how EVERYONE should understand its meaning. Those men who wrote the Constitution did so with deliberation.
The intent of every law shall be the same and interpreted...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The Supreme court rarely refers to the preamble when it makes decisions. It is politically motivated
I doubt that ANY elected individual can even recite the preamble and yet they continue to be re-elected term after term by people who dont know the preamble.
PLEASE READ the Constitution from first word to last so we can save this American Nation
Click to expand...

Is there a particular Supreme Court decision that you feel exemplifies this "interpretation" you find so objectionable?
 
NWRatCon said:
Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is already made up!
Click to expand...

I know. Tommy boy did manage to keep in touch with Madison through letters he wrote that went on ships and they kept up in the old fashioned way, months at sea each way. Now Tommy was a busy little boy though in Paris between attending court events, buying up every book he could find and doing the Moulin Rouge with Sally every day and night.
 
The archaic second Amendment has been misinterpreted greatly to American detriment.
 
Lursa said:
I cant really agree. There are still countries that deify (or nearly so) their dictators/leaders. Those people get little or no such process and in many cases, dont believe they are entitled to it.

It's a huge cultural difference.
Click to expand...

Those countries certainly exist, but thankfully they're in the minority. Most countries have the same goals as the American people, especially western countries. They just go about pursuing those goals in drastically different ways and have drastically different amounts of success in achieving them. American government is unique and flexible. American desires are universal. The constitution outlines American desires, and establishes relatively vague outline of how to achieve them. Throughout history, we have interpreted this outline according to our needs, and this is where the strength of the constitution lies. A rigid and unyielding government is a government that collapses under its own weight during a storm. The ability to bend is the most important quality of the constitution.
 
MeThePeople said:
As I read through several posts I was not amazed by the level of interpretation by people to make the Constitution mean what they want it to say.
The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the intent of the meanaing of the document and how EVERYONE should understand its meaning. Those men who wrote the Constitution did so with deliberation.
The intent of every law shall be the same and interpreted...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The Supreme court rarely refers to the preamble when it makes decisions. It is politically motivated
I doubt that ANY elected individual can even recite the preamble and yet they continue to be re-elected term after term by people who dont know the preamble.
PLEASE READ the Constitution from first word to last so we can save this American Nation
Click to expand...

It should be noted that a preamble is merely a summation of the following document. As a summation, the Preamble is not legally binding. Only the actual Articles of the US Constitution are considered legally binding by the Supreme Court. It is not politically motivated, it is legally motivated.

Furthermore, the attitudes of the nation have changed a great deal since the US Constitution was ratified in 1789 and the Bill of Rights added in 1791. States once had their own State-sponsored religion. The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States, so the States could search and seize anything they wanted any time they wanted. Lots of things have changed in the last 228 years, including the US Constitution and how we interpret it. It was only last month that the Supreme Court finally incorporated the Eighth Amendment and applied it to the States.

Before February 2019 States could impose any fine/penalty they desired, without restriction. If they found a marijuana joint in your $40,000 BMW, they could seize your property. Thanks to the Supreme Court and their interpretation of how the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies it to the States, States can no longer impose excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.
 
NWRatCon said:
The Constitution contains two primary purposes. First, it is structural, laying out the form of government, distribution of the powers and authorities, and enumerating responsibilities. Second, it is aspirational. It sets forth principles in the Preamble in its purpose, and various protections in the Bill of Rights and additional Amendments. (Frankly, the 9th Amendment is the most important of those, and most commonly overlooked.)

The Constitution is not a straight-jacket. While it constrains government power, it is, nonetheless, intended to create a functional government. For 235 years it has worked.

There are "interpretations" of the Constitution that would undercut and even destroy that construction, but they are not the ones now posited by the original poster. "Originalism" is a relatively new approach to Constitutional interpretation, and is, frankly, a fraud. New Originalism: A Constitutional Scam (Dissent) "When most historians look closely at originalist arguments, what they usually find is bad history shaped to fit an ideological agenda—what historians derisively call “law office history.”"

The "original intent" of the founders was to create a functional government. To do so, they set forth general principles to govern how the government was to function. Interpretation of its applicability is absolutely required to be situational. That's how every law works, and it was commonly understood by every founder who was a lawyer (which was about 72% of them). They were trained in the "Common Law", and adopted it for the new nation. Common law interpretation has been applied, and was intended to be applied, to the Constitution as a document. It was the same in England, from where the common law was derived.

I am, among other things, a lawyer, historian, and political scientist. I am steeped in the Constitution, its history, its applicability, and its interpretation. That is why I get so frustrated by the facile, uninformed, and partisan statements about what the Constitution was, is, and does. If anyone wants to carry on a substantive discussion, I'm all in. But, you better bring substance.
Click to expand...

"Originalism" is a relatively new approach to Constitutional interpretation, and is, frankly, a fraud.
Click to expand...

Better than Living Constitution, Strict Construction, or the Constitution means whatever 5 or more justices say it means. Much less a "fraud" than those other approaches.

Interpretation of its applicability is absolutely required to be situational. That's how every law works, and it was commonly understood by every founder who was a lawyer (which was about 72% of them). They were trained in the "Common Law", and adopted it for the new nation. Common law interpretation has been applied, and was intended to be applied, to the Constitution as a document. It was the same in England, from where the common law was derived.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, although the phrase "and was intended to be applied, to the Constitution as a document" is very contentious and disputed. Regardless, as Justice Scalia, perhaps the most renown Originalist, opined, the common law approach is not necessarily inconsistent with Originalism, or as you phrased it "applicability is absolutely required to be situational." Sure, that is undoubtedly true, as the judge/justice must apply the meaning to a factual situation and at times make a judgment call as to what outcome follows from the meaning when applied to some factual scenario. Common law can be used by the Originalist, as they will look to see how the Original Meaning was applied previously to an identical or similar set of facts, to assist in arriving to an outcome in the facts before the judge/jurist.

I am, among other things, a lawyer, historian, and political scientist. I am steeped in the Constitution, its history, its applicability, and its interpretation.
Click to expand...

You don't say. Lemme guess, you are one of those who would write a book and then write their own dang review of the book!
 
NotreDame said:
Better than Living Constitution, Strict Construction, or the Constitution means whatever 5 or more justices say it means. Much less a "fraud" than those other approaches.

Perhaps, although the phrase "and was intended to be applied, to the Constitution as a document" is very contentious and disputed. Regardless, as Justice Scalia, perhaps the most renown Originalist, opined, the common law approach is not necessarily inconsistent with Originalism, or as you phrased it "applicability is absolutely required to be situational." Sure, that is undoubtedly true, as the judge/justice must apply the meaning to a factual situation and at times make a judgment call as to what outcome follows from the meaning when applied to some factual scenario. Common law can be used by the Originalist, as they will look to see how the Original Meaning was applied previously to an identical or similar set of facts, to assist in arriving to an outcome in the facts before the judge/jurist.

You don't say. Lemme guess, you are one of those who would write a book and then write their own dang review of the book!
Click to expand...

There are no "originalists" any longer. They can't be "originalists" because the original document has drastically changed since 1789. Most of that change came through amendments. We don't even view the Bill of Rights the same way they originally did in 1791 because of the 14th Amendment and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to State and local governments.

So unless they are in favor of State-sponsored (not federally sponsored) religion, or allowing States to search and seize at their whim, or deny their citizens a jury trial or a lawyer, or allowing slaves - like they did in 1791 - then they can't be "originalists." Despite their claims to the contrary.
 
Glitch said:
There are no "originalists" any longer. They can't be "originalists" because the original document has drastically changed since 1789. Most of that change came through amendments. We don't even view the Bill of Rights the same way they originally did in 1791 because of the 14th Amendment and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to State and local governments.

So unless they are in favor of State-sponsored (not federally sponsored) religion, or allowing States to search and seize at their whim, or deny their citizens a jury trial or a lawyer, or allowing slaves - like they did in 1791 - then they can't be "originalists." Despite their claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

The some amendments to the Constitution added to the Constitution, some changed existing language and meaning to the Constitution. However, not every word, clause, provision, paragraph, or section was impacted, modified, affected, changed, or altered by amendments. The vast majority of the document ratified by 9 of the 13 states in 1788 and effective in 1789, is untouched by amendments.

Only one aspect of the BOR was changed by the 14th Amendment, specifically its applicability to the states. The original meaning of the text of the amendments of BOR was untouched by the 14th Amendment and incorporated onto the states by the 14th Amendment.

Originalists look to discern the public meaning or public understanding at or near the time of a ratification date. Nothing you said is an impediment to that approach.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The archaic second Amendment has been misinterpreted greatly to American detriment.
Click to expand...

True, the FDR courts pretended that FDR gun laws didn't violate the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom