Show of HandsShow of Hands

Mattwall1 August 14th, 2015 2:17pm

For the purposes of Constitutional interpretation, are you an originalist?

5 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Agonist Iowa
08/15/15 8:13 am

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.

Reply
VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/15/15 8:36 am

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

VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/15/15 8:38 am

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.

Agonist Iowa
08/15/15 8:43 am

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.

VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/15/15 8:56 am

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.

VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/15/15 7:30 am

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

Reply
VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/15/15 7:31 am

sway of society and cultural whims alter the way our government functions and its strict boundaries thereof.

ezh2o Texas Hill Country
08/15/15 9:39 am

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.

nekmor Round Rock TX
08/15/15 5:38 am

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.

Reply
smarttexan More Moderate Than U
08/14/15 4:17 pm

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.

Reply
PresWK Minnesota
08/15/15 8:56 am

Yeah, fucking cronies giving us rights and shit

smarttexan More Moderate Than U
08/15/15 9:01 am

We give ourselves rights.

ezh2o Texas Hill Country
08/15/15 9:42 am

The reason we have the Constitution and laws is to protect our liberties from others and the government.

Mark3
08/14/15 2:54 pm

Someone tell me what do the changes in technology have to do with changing one's political philosophy?

Reply
Mark3
08/16/15 5:10 am

(sound of crickets.)

Diknak Ohio
08/14/15 9:30 am

lol, no. The constitution was written by people without cars, planes, and the internet. Things have changed a bit since they wrote it.

Reply
EnderWiggin So disillusioned...
08/14/15 8:43 am

Only in the second amendment allowing all persons to bear muskets.

Reply
VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/15/15 7:27 am

Or in the first amendment allowing the press nothing more than an old-style printing press.

tsd715 New York City
08/14/15 8:17 am

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.

Reply
VoteLibertarian Marble Falls, Texas
08/15/15 7:33 am

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.

bethanyq Ess Eff
08/14/15 7:41 am

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.

Reply
Mattwall1
08/15/15 8:21 am

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

Mattwall1
08/15/15 8:22 am

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)

Mark3
08/16/15 5:09 am

The impossibility of reaching an ideal in no way diminishes the importance of the ideal.

Mattwall1
08/16/15 6:44 am

Maybe for general issues but for legal interpretation? You need something substantive

bethanyq Ess Eff
08/16/15 9:41 am

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?

Mark3
08/16/15 11:49 am

Then I ask again, what could a change in technology possibly have to do with one's political philosophy?

Mattwall1
08/16/15 11:53 am

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

Mattwall1
08/16/15 11:55 am

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

bethanyq Ess Eff
08/16/15 11:59 am

Who said anything about political philosophy? This is about jurisprudential outlook, not politics.

Mattwall1
08/16/15 11:59 am

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

Mattwall1
08/16/15 12:01 pm

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

Mattwall1
08/16/15 12:03 pm

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

Mark3
08/16/15 12:06 pm

You don't think one's political philosophy is related to whether one is an "originalist?" Okay.

bethanyq Ess Eff
08/16/15 12:10 pm

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

bethanyq Ess Eff
08/16/15 12:10 pm

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.

Mark3
08/17/15 3:40 am

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?

Mattwall1
08/17/15 5:02 am

Again, look at the cases I listed. I'd go in greater detail about them, but I'm about to go on a plane

bethanyq Ess Eff
08/17/15 6:56 am

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.

Mark3
08/17/15 7:04 am

"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.

bethanyq Ess Eff
08/17/15 7:13 am

And what did you read into that that's at all incompatible with anything else I've said?