For the purposes of Constitutional interpretation, are you an originalist?
Originalists are frauds. They are trying to read the minds of the individuals who wrote the Constitution over 225 years ago. It's impossible and ridiculous.
Of course it's not - that's like saying that trying to interpret ANY writing is ridiculous, since you can never fully know the writer's intent. Luckily, almost all of the 55 men at the const. convention wrote about their political theories & opinions
So we can better understand what their intent was, which I believe we have done a fair job. Even so, doing our best to follow their intentions despite not fully knowing exactly what they were is STILL more consistent than abandoning it completely.
You proved my point. Originalists take the words used 225 years ago and try to discern why they used those words then, and apply that 225 year-old thought process to today's society. It's a rationally bankrupt philosophy.
I don't see why a simple change in vocabulary usage warrants the dismissal of entire political philosophy. As for the age, that also is meaningless - do we dismiss Plato, Aristotle, or the teachings of Jesus? No, because truth doesn't change w/ time.
Yes - what is the point of principled government if we flat out refuse to follow its guidelines? If you want changes in the constitution, fine - urge your congressmen to pass constitutional amendments to make it so, but don't allow the
sway of society and cultural whims alter the way our government functions and its strict boundaries thereof.
SCOUS is changing the laws and the Constitution over reaching their authority for political reasons. More control and discretion should be used in selecting justices for that job to eliminate politics in the SCOTUS.
I am shocked. For years I have made it a point to read the constitution on July 4th. I can't imagine a set of circumstances where contemporary interpretations made better policy than the original verbiage. Technology has no bearing.
Do you mean do I think a rich, elitist, bunch of white males who've been dead several hundred years should think for me? No.
Yeah, fucking cronies giving us rights and shit
We give ourselves rights.
The reason we have the Constitution and laws is to protect our liberties from others and the government.
Someone tell me what do the changes in technology have to do with changing one's political philosophy?
(sound of crickets.)
lol, no. The constitution was written by people without cars, planes, and the internet. Things have changed a bit since they wrote it.
Only in the second amendment allowing all persons to bear muskets.
Or in the first amendment allowing the press nothing more than an old-style printing press.
No. The Constitution was founded on strong values that mostly still hold true to this day, however, it's not 1787 anymore and we can't interpret the Constitution like it is.
The whole purpose of writing in the first place is to understand what the writer intended. I'm not saying you shouldn't disagree with them, but to interpret someone else's writing to accompany your own worldview is to essentially create new truth.
I'm a pragmatist.
No, I don't believe it makes sense to interpret our laws pretending we live in a world without electricity, cars, nukes, or the Internet.
More to the point, many of them even understood you can't read the COTUS in terse isolated clauses, but for the document as a whole-including context and legal precedent. Of course, when even the people that wrote the document couldn't unanimously
Agree on how to interpret it, how can ANY (or almost any) issue even have a single originalist stance? You can't (you could theoretically pick between multiple, but that blows the theory up in itself)
The impossibility of reaching an ideal in no way diminishes the importance of the ideal.
Maybe for general issues but for legal interpretation? You need something substantive
What "ideal" are you talking about, Mark? What's "ideal" about interpreting an old legal document in a way that doesn't take the modern world into account?
Then I ask again, what could a change in technology possibly have to do with one's political philosophy?
Part of the issue with originalism the first place is establishing original intent, which only works when there is an actual intent and not debate, which more often than not isn't the case. It also requires originalists to abide by the historical
Record when it exists (although being humans with an agenda, that's nowhere near universal), as well as understanding the historical and legal contexts the founding took place on and the founders acknowledged. Rarely does that happen, it usually
Who said anything about political philosophy? This is about jurisprudential outlook, not politics.
Seems little more than conservative ideology given a appealing sounding frosting to show off (also, you didn't answer the questions toward you. You just asked one back). As for technology I'd suggest you look up Maryland v Craig and United States v
Kammersell, as well as Kyllo v United States and get back on how technology has no bearing. Also, I'll leave you with a quote from James Madison "If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of
the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living language are constantly subject." Doesn't uber originalist to me at least
You don't think one's political philosophy is related to whether one is an "originalist?" Okay.
Mark, I'm a lawyer, not a mind-reader or even a psychologist. I possess neither the relevant expertise nor the inclination to engage in conjecture about *why* someone might have a particular judicial philosophy. And I don't see why anyone's personal
reasons for having a given philosophy are relevant to a discussion about whether that philosophy makes sense. Engaging in that kind of speculation borders on an ad hominem fallacy anyway.
It's an easy observation: Judges who hold a given socio political philosophy routinely express it in their rulings. Routinely happens at every level, most famously at the SCOTUS. Back to it, why would technology chg. your political philosophy?
Again, look at the cases I listed. I'd go in greater detail about them, but I'm about to go on a plane
Mark, that's true to some extent but it isn't that simple. And regardless it isn't about technology "changing" my view. It's recognizing that technology means a lot of laws don't "fit" perfectly as written. Copyright is a great example.
"No, I don't believe it makes sense to interpret our laws pretending we live in a world without electricity, cars, nukes, or the Internet."
You'll pardon me if I saw a little more in your original post.
And what did you read into that that's at all incompatible with anything else I've said?