- Joined
- Oct 15, 2020
- Messages
- 37,056
- Reaction score
- 18,261
- Location
- Greater Boston Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Maybe you should worry more about how you spend your own time and less about how I spend mine.But if you would really like to waste your time on that crock of nonsense then the pure and simple fact that there are numerous historians, judges, and legal scholars who know the constitution and history like the back of their hands and yet still radically disagree on meanings and intentions proves you to be 100% wrong on this point too.
Your own personal biases clearly influence how you choose to read the constitution. The 2nd Amendment as a classic example is very clear to me that it is intended to apply to a well-regulated militia which was essential at the time and completely unnecessary today. It is also very clear to me that the founder had never dreamed of Nuclear-Arms when they said the "right to bear arms".
As a result, the size and destructive power of "arms" the founders intended individuals to own are entirely up to anyone's guess and cannot be proven definitively.
This is what virtually all judges do. This is not originalism. However, it is very clear that context is every bit as important if not more important than the literal text.As I've said elsewhere in this thread, there is all the difference in the world between making an honest attempt at identifying intent and willfully ignoring it in order to legislate from the bench.
Opinion, not fact.Originalism is a blatant disregard for context and an unwillingness to even consider that not everything was clearly thought out by the founders.
Talk about straw-men. Do you really think originalism is limited to the intent of the original version of the Constitution?Yet clearly at the time, the founders did not consider black people or Native Americans to be human beings that counted in that statement. It is clear that in cases such as these the founders had intentions that they themselves did not fully live up to.
Natural born is in our federal Constitution.
Congress writes the amendments for the states to ratify. Neither the courts, the executive or the states can initiate a change to the constitution. Let me know if you need anymore help.
Fact.Opinion, not fact.
No, Originalism is a blatant political ploy. It's not a philosophy of any kind it's a slogan designed to make it seem like only conservatives care about the constitution and liberals don't.Talk about straw-men. Do you really think originalism is limited to the intent of the original version of the Constitution?
What I've learned from this exchange:Fact.
No, Originalism is a blatant political ploy. It's not a philosophy of any kind it's a slogan designed to make it seem like only conservatives care about the constitution and liberals don't.
Originalism in reality is nothing more than Conservativism dressed up in a black gown. It's a bias in favor of old ways of thinking in order to give people scared of the future and excuse to continue violating basic human rights.
It's the same bullshit you see when so-called fiscal conservatives only seem to care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the white house. Judicial Activism is a line that's fed to idiots when Liberal Judges hand down rules they don't like, and an excuse to destroy human rights under the guise of being true to the constitution and the founder's intentions.
It's not a philosophy it's a lie, plain and simple.
Case in point. You just project all the things you yourself are guilty of on me and announce yourself as devoid of bias when it's very clearly not the case.What I've learned from this exchange:
Have a nice evening.
- You don't really know what originalism is.
- You don't know what arguments are being made against originalism.
- You don't appreciate the consequences of departing from original intent.
- Your political bias is likely what's blinding you.
- You cannot separate fact from your own opinion.
I never said it was a good argument against originalism (it's a lousy one, actually). But it is not a straw-man. As poor an argument as it may be, in my experience it's one activists frequently make.
It is a fixed Standard in writing in our federal Constitution. What do you believe separation of the morals of church and State mean????
The president must be a natural born citizen.
What do you think that means....not born via caesarian section ?
It is a fixed Standard in writing in our federal Constitution. What do you believe separation of the morals of church and State mean?
No, we should not.Weak argument or not, you still haven't found an argument to counter it.
How about if tomorrow someone finds a letter in their attic that Elbridge Gerry wrote to his niece that expresses heretofore unknown constitutional views that weren't previously ascribed to him? Are we supposed to over over two centuries of legal precedent because of that?
No, we should not.
As I pointed out early the right to bear arms could be construed to include any and all arms, which would include Nuclear-Arms.
The Declaration of Independence for example clearly states that this country was founded on the proposition that All Men Are Created Equal.
Congress writes the amendments for the states to ratify. Neither the courts, the executive or the states can initiate a change to the constitution. Let me know if you need anymore help.
Two-thirds of the States (34 States at present) may call for a convention and write an amendment.
Did you know that our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from Intelligent Design and Inception? Only sufficient morals were lacking.All White Men are created equal.
The fact that the Constitution did not recognize some people as full citizens does not mean the document is flawed.
Did you know that our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from Intelligent Design and Inception? Only sufficient morals were lacking.
While it may speak to the intent of one individual; it does not speak to the consensus understanding of the many who ratified the law.Even if it speaks to original intent?
What is not covered by our Ten simple Amendments?Intelligent Design ?
Are you suggesting the input of some supernatural being ?
There is nothing ambiguous or vague regarding the most excellent job our Founding Fathers dis at the convention with our supreme law of the land.While it may speak to the intent of one individual; it does not speak to the consensus understanding of the many who ratified the law.
.
Can't agree with you there. There is room for honest difference when it comes to an assessment of what was intended. If you're looking for vague wording, you need look no further than the 2A.There is nothing ambiguous or vague regarding the most excellent job our Founding Fathers dis at the convention with our supreme law of the land.
Don't take this the wrong way, but the only thing vague about our Second Article of Amendment is the ignorance that Must be appealed to. It is perfectly clear, to me.Can't agree with you there. There is room for honest difference when it comes to an assessment of what was intended. If you're looking for vague wording, you need look no further than the 2A.
I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether the "well regulated militia" qualifier opens up the "right to bear arms" clause for discussion. I happen to believe the 2A is an unqualified statement securing the right to own a gun, but I can see why others question it.Don't take this the wrong way, but the only thing vague about our Second Article of Amendment is the ignorance that Must be appealed to. It is perfectly clear, to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?