Originalism Is Conservative BS

[joe1776]

Since conservatives are now in a minority, unable to make persuasive arguments for their policies that would resist change, they cunningly fall back on the Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett explained "originalism" like this: "In English that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law," she said, "and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it."

The men who wrote the constitution intended that only white, male, landowners should have the right to vote. Would Amy vote to reverse the rulings that expanded voting rights to other citizens? Would she also be opposed to the other constitutional amendments which expand on the text of the original document?

 

[Revoltingest]

Since conservatives are now in a minority, unable to make persuasive arguments for their policies that would resist change, they cunningly fall back on the Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett explained "originalism" like this: "In English that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law," she said, "and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it."

The men who wrote the constitution intended that only white, male, landowners should have the right to vote. Would Amy vote to reverse the rulings that expanded voting rights to other citizens? Would she also be opposed to the other constitutional amendments which expand on the text of the original document?

You have a very different view of constitutional originalism than do I.
It's not about emulating he lives of the authors, but rather interpreting
the Constitution as it was intended. This includes intentions of the
authors of subsequent amendments.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The men who wrote the constitution intended that only white, male, landowners should have the right to vote. Would Amy vote to reverse the rulings that expanded voting rights to other citizens? Would she also be opposed to the other constitutional amendments which expand on the text of the original document?

No. I assume she would claim to support the Constitution as amended.

 

[Secret Chief]

meaning doesn't change over time

 

[joe1776]

You have a very different view of constitutional originalism than do I.
It's not about emulating he lives of the authors, but rather interpreting
the Constitution as it was intended. This includes intentions of the
authors of subsequent amendments.

It's not my view of originalism that matters.

How do you write an amendment that ISN'T an update (which ACB says shouldn't be done).

 

[joe1776]

No. I assume she would claim to support the Constitution as amended.

If you assume that, you have to also assume that originalism doesn't mean to her what she says it means.

 

[Stevicus]

meaning doesn't change over time

View attachment 44473

I was curious about this image, so I did a bit of checking and found out that one can actually buy this horrible looking thing for €191.99 ($225.32).

https://www.truebalticamber.com/large-fly-insect-inclusions-in-baltic-amber-fossil-stone-f850.html

They say they're out of stock.

 

[joe1776]

You have a very different view of constitutional originalism than do I.
It's not about emulating he lives of the authors, but rather interpreting
the Constitution as it was intended. This includes intentions of the authors of subsequent amendments.

The last sentence is YOUR interpretation of originalism, not ACB's.

Your interpretation doesn't make sense since the word "original " wouldn't include later documents by different authors.

 

[PureX]

To be honest about it, the U.S. Constitution is a mess. It's vague, incomplete, and poorly written. Which means that it not only requires a lot of relative interpretation, it requires a fair amount of interpretive guidance, as well.

Fortunately, we do have some guidance in interpreting the original writer's intentions when the Constitution's actual wording becomes hopelessly vague, confused, or negligent. And that is the Declaration of Independence; in which the writers deliberately declared to all the world WHY they were creating a new nation. And thereby wrote down some of the fundamental principals that they intended this new nation to embody. And it is this document that we can and should be using the help us interpret and apply the otherwise vague and confused propositions being but forth in the U. S. Constitution.

 

[Nakosis]

The last sentence is YOUR interpretation of originalism, not ACB's.

Your interpretation doesn't make sense since the word "original " wouldn't include later documents by different authors.

I guess we are going to find out. At least whether we can take her at her word or not.

I'm hoping we can, but honestly, we don't really know. Personally, I don't like to worry about maybes. Not saying you are wrong too but I feel it is more important to deal with what has happened than what might.

 

[Nakosis]

To be honest about it, the U.S. Constitution is a mess. It's vague, incomplete, and poorly written. Which means that it not only requires a lot of relative interpretation, it requires a fair amount of interpretive guidance, as well.

Fortunately, we do have some guidance in interpreting the original writer's intentions when the Constitution's actual wording becomes hopelessly vague, confused, or negligent. And that is the Declaration of Independence; in which the writers deliberately declared to all the world WHY they were creating a new nation. And thereby wrote down some of the fundamental principals that they intended this new nation to embody. And it is this document that we can and should be using the help us interpret and apply the otherwise vague and confused propositions being but forth in the U. S. Constitution.

That is true, IMO. It was a compromise in order to get it signed. However, it would be Congress's job to fix it, not the justice system.

 

[joe1776]

To be honest about it, the U.S. Constitution is a mess. It's vague, incomplete, and poorly written. Which means that it not only requires a lot of relative interpretation, it requires a fair amount of interpretive guidance, as well.

Fortunately, we do have some guidance in interpreting the original writer's intentions when the Constitution's actual wording becomes hopelessly vague, confused, or negligent. And that is the Declaration of Independence; in which the writers deliberately declared to all the world WHY they were creating a new nation. And thereby wrote down some of the fundamental principals that they intended this new nation to embody. And it is this document that we can and should be using the help us interpret and apply the otherwise vague and confused propositions being but forth in the U. S. Constitution.

I think laws are like locks. They keep honest people out. But crooks have the expertise to break them. It doesn't matter what the legislators intended. A decent lawyer can find a loophole in any law to defeat its purpose.

 

[PureX]

That is true, IMO. It was a compromise in order to get it signed. However, it would be Congress's job to fix it, not the justice system.

The responsibility to interpret and implement the Constitution belongs to all three branches of government, equally. Unfortunately, that (like a great many things) wasn't clearly spelled out, and so chaos results.

 

[PureX]

I think laws are like locks. They keep honest people out. But crooks have the expertise to break them. It doesn't matter what the legislators intended. A decent lawyer can find a loophole in any law to defeat its purpose.

That's why it's very important that judges NOT follow only the letter of the law, but also the ideals and principals that those laws were intended to institute.

 

[Miken]

Since conservatives are now in a minority, unable to make persuasive arguments for their policies that would resist change, they cunningly fall back on the Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett explained "originalism" like this: "In English that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law," she said, "and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it."

The men who wrote the constitution intended that only white, male, landowners should have the right to vote. Would Amy vote to reverse the rulings that expanded voting rights to other citizens? Would she also be opposed to the other constitutional amendments which expand on the text of the original document?

The original constitution did not establish much in the way of who could or could not vote. That was mostly a matter for states to decide. Subsequent amendments and federal laws (specifically allowed by the Constitution) have changed that picture considerably, making voting rights more equitable. Originalism does not mean only white male landowners can vote. That was the case in most states but originally free black men could vote in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, although reaction to vocal abolitionist movements reversed that. Most states had dropped property owning qualifications before the Civil War, Only white male landowners voting was never a part of the Constitution and was not even the case everywhere at that time.

 

[Yazata]

You have a very different view of constitutional originalism than do I.

And me as well.

It's not about emulating he lives of the authors, but rather interpreting
the Constitution as it was intended.

Amy Coney Barrett explained that in her view (which I emphatically agree with) that it isn't the job of the judiciary to usurp the job of the legislative branch and function as a tiny lifetime-appointed legislature able to overrule the elected legislators whenever judges' personal desires direct. It's the job of jurists to go by the laws that the legislative branch give them, not to rewrite those laws as the jurists wish they had been written. That means interpreting the law as those who wrote the law meant it to mean.

Originalism doesn't mean that changing the law is impossible. It just means that the changes have to come from the legislature or from amending the Constitution in the case of Constitutional law. It means that judges can't unilaterally make the law mean whatever they personally want it to mean.

This includes intentions of the authors of subsequent amendments.

Exactly.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not my view of originalism that matters.

How do you write an amendment that ISN'T an update (which ACB says shouldn't be done).

ACB opposes amending the Constitution?
That would be odd, given that this document
itself provides the means to do so. Links?

 

[Miken]

The responsibility to interpret and implement the Constitution belongs to all three branches of government, equally. Unfortunately, that (like a great many things) wasn't clearly spelled out, and so chaos results.

The constitution is quite clear on the powers and responsibilities of the three branches, and interpreting the Constitution is entirely within the Judicial branch as described in Article III. The chaos results from one branch encroaching on the territory of other branches.

But then:

 

[Yazata]

It's not my view of originalism that matters.

How do you write an amendment that ISN'T an update (which ACB says shouldn't be done).

She never said that. What she did say is that the meaning of the Constitution shouldn't be changed at will by judges according to those judges' personal desires. If somebody wants the Constitution to mean something different than the intentions of those who wrote it, they have to amend it. There's a whole procedure for doing that which has been successfully used several dozen times.

 

[Revoltingest]

The last sentence is YOUR interpretation of originalism, not ACB's.

Your interpretation doesn't make sense since the word "original " wouldn't include later documents by different authors.

It makes perfect sense if one realizes that the Constitution
originally included 10 amendments, with the provision for
adding more. Certainly, if the first 10 had authors who
intended certain effects, then so would subsequent ones.
Thus there would be original intent behind each.
Strict constructionism (without considering intent) could
bind us to meaning not intended. Originalism sheds
light on them.