The end of original intent

F

flaja

New member
Seeing as how not a few posters here have it in their mind that there is something known as original intent that is supposed to be the only way to determine the meaning of the United States Constitution, it would be well to have an examination of what the Founding Father’s actually said when they were given the opportunity to put original intent into operation.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/ref/blfirstsou.htm

The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures by all proper means will not, I trust, need recommendation; but I can not forbear intimating to you the expediency of giving effectual encouragement as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home, and of facilitating the intercourse between the distant parts of our country by a due attention to the post-office and post-roads.
Click to expand...

And it came to pass in the Year of Our Lord, seventeen-hundred and ninety that the Constitution required George Washington, Founding Father and President of the United States, to inform the Congress and the nation of his original intent in the form of recommendations and information on the state of the Union.

And lo! The original intent of George Washington, Founding Father and President of the United States was for the federal government to promote agriculture, commerce and manufacturing through the provision of “effectual encouragement”. One could say that George Washington’s original intent was for the federal government to subsidize behavior useful to the general welfare of the United States.

Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours it is proportionably essential.
Click to expand...

Oh, what manner of libertarian discomfiture can this be? Lo, and behold the original intent of George Washington, Founding Father and President of the United States, was for the federal government to promote science and literature. Glory Be! Glory Be! More subsidies!

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.
Click to expand...

And then it came to pass that George Washington, Founding Father and President of the United States, spoke and behold his original intent is for the federal government to promote education for the sake of having a knowledgeable citizenry that could understand their rights and thus know the best way to protect those rights and to understand that their rights do not give them the license that libertarians claim in the name of liberty. Glory Be! Glory Be! The original intent of George Washington, Founding Father and President of the United States, was for libertarians to obey the laws of the land- laws against whoring, laws against pot, laws against drunkenness if such laws be.

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.
Click to expand...

Hallelujah! So here it is, point blank: the original intent of George Washington, Founding Father and President of the United States, was for the federal government to support public education. Glory Be! Glory Be!

And then, may Heaven be ever thanked, James Madison, Founding Father and President of the United States and reputed author of the Constitution thereof, declared:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1213

“Whilst it is universally admitted that a well—instructed people alone can be permanently a free people, and whilst it is evident that the means of diffusing and improving useful knowledge form so small a proportion of the expenditures for national purposes, I can not presume it to be unseasonable to invite your attention to the advantages of superadding to the means of education provided by the several States a seminary of learning instituted by the National Legislature within the limits of their exclusive jurisdiction, the expense of which might be defrayed or reimbursed out of the vacant grounds which have accrued to the nation within those limits.“

Glory Be! Glory Be! O Glory Be!. Original intent is for the federal government to not only support public schools- but pay for them too.

So original intent is for the federal government to do what so many original intent-dependent (and brain-dead) libertarians say it should not do.
 
And lo and behold, George Washington was not the only person involved. As as been pointed out MANY times before, the Constitution is the result of MANY people with differing ideas, who met, debated, AND COMPROMISED, to establish the Constitution. Not all of Washingtons ideas were used. He knew that.

Also, though Washington WANTED more federal authority, he still maintained that the ONLY valid method of changing the Constituion was through amendment. Why is it you point out what Washington wanted going into the process, then IGNORE his caution against usurpation as a means to change? Washington understood something FAR better that you "I don't like what it says, so I'll change what it means" types. He did NOT get what he wanted, yet STILL did not want interpretation to be a means of change. Because hee knew that allowing the government to interpret for themselves their limitations would simply result in an ever growing, ever more repressive government.
 
flaja said:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1213

“Whilst it is universally admitted that a well—instructed people alone can be permanently a free people, and whilst it is evident that the means of diffusing and improving useful knowledge form so small a proportion of the expenditures for national purposes, I can not presume it to be unseasonable to invite your attention to the advantages of superadding to the means of education provided by the several States a seminary of learning instituted by the National Legislature within the limits of their exclusive jurisdiction, the expense of which might be defrayed or reimbursed out of the vacant grounds which have accrued to the nation within those limits.“
Click to expand...
Funny how you anti-constitution types ignore whenever the founders refer to limits to the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Face it. Though the current government agrees with you (of course they do, free interpretation gives them more power) the founders did not. Washington did not. Hamilton did not. Madison did not. Jefferson most assuredly did not. They knew from experience what you "know" (but do not viscerally acknowledge) that governments will always grow to fill - and more - the boundaries given them. They also knew that if they granted the government the authority to define their limits, those limits would have zero effect on the encroachment of government in the long run.

As Washington cautioned, we do see a few "good" things from growing government beyond it's intended bounds. But we are seeing more and more bad things, such as the expansion of presidential war powers under Bush. The "good" we CAN (but do not always) receive for open interpretation is far outweighed by the dangers of government growing to despotic levels.
 
Good Luck said:
And lo and behold, George Washington was not the only person involved. As as been pointed out MANY times before, the Constitution is the result of MANY people with differing ideas,
Click to expand...

Meaning there is no original intent. The Founders were not all of one mind going into the Convention, and neither were they of one mind coming out. They didn't all believe the Constitution meant the same thing. There was no original intent.

As I expected. All of you original intentists have simply made original intent in your own image. You jump through mental hoops to make original intent say government cannot do what the American People (but not you) want. You all use original intent as an excuse to gripe and complain about things you personally don’t like. If you were serious about original intent and were certain that there is such a thing and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that failure to obey what you think original intent is is harming the nation, you wouldn’t be sitting on your duffs or wasting time going around in circles on the net. You be putting your money where your mouths are. You would be fighting for your original intent at the ballot box and the court room- oh that’s right- you don’t think the Courts can interpret the Constitution because you won’t risk being told you are wrong about original intent. What a bunch of hypocrites you must be.
 
flaja said:
Meaning there is no original intent. The Founders were not all of one mind going into the Convention, and neither were they of one mind coming out. They didn't all believe the Constitution meant the same thing. There was no original intent.

As I expected. All of you original intentists have simply made original intent in your own image. You jump through mental hoops to make original intent say government cannot do what the American People (but not you) want. You all use original intent as an excuse to gripe and complain about things you personally don’t like. If you were serious about original intent and were certain that there is such a thing and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that failure to obey what you think original intent is is harming the nation, you wouldn’t be sitting on your duffs or wasting time going around in circles on the net. You be putting your money where your mouths are. You would be fighting for your original intent at the ballot box and the court room- oh that’s right- you don’t think the Courts can interpret the Constitution because you won’t risk being told you are wrong about original intent. What a bunch of hypocrites you must be.
Click to expand...
Says the guy that pretends his version of "intent" is the real one. You have only presented that you believe that words like "General Welfare" were added because they intended change to come through the courts and through interpretations by the later legislators.

I go by the Federalist papers and historical writing of the people who actually wrote it, and comprehend that changes come through the process of Amendments, as they repeat consistently throughout.
 
flaja said:
Meaning there is no original intent. The Founders were not all of one mind going into the Convention, and neither were they of one mind coming out. They didn't all believe the Constitution meant the same thing. There was no original intent.

As I expected. All of you original intentists have simply made original intent in your own image. You jump through mental hoops to make original intent say government cannot do what the American People (but not you) want. You all use original intent as an excuse to gripe and complain about things you personally don’t like. If you were serious about original intent and were certain that there is such a thing and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that failure to obey what you think original intent is is harming the nation, you wouldn’t be sitting on your duffs or wasting time going around in circles on the net. You be putting your money where your mouths are. You would be fighting for your original intent at the ballot box and the court room- oh that’s right- you don’t think the Courts can interpret the Constitution because you won’t risk being told you are wrong about original intent. What a bunch of hypocrites you must be.
Click to expand...

do you realize how idiotic you sound with this rant?

you want the courts to 'interpret' the constitution and they have, wrongly I might add, though you seem to be just along for the ride whether the courts get it right or wrong. That was not the original intent, to let the government roll with the ebb and flow of the times and determine whether we can have this right or freedom anymore.
 
flaja said:
Meaning there is no original intent. The Founders were not all of one mind going into the Convention, and neither were they of one mind coming out. They didn't all believe the Constitution meant the same thing. There was no original intent.

As I expected. All of you original intentists have simply made original intent in your own image. You jump through mental hoops to make original intent say government cannot do what the American People (but not you) want. You all use original intent as an excuse to gripe and complain about things you personally don’t like. If you were serious about original intent and were certain that there is such a thing and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that failure to obey what you think original intent is is harming the nation, you wouldn’t be sitting on your duffs or wasting time going around in circles on the net. You be putting your money where your mouths are. You would be fighting for your original intent at the ballot box and the court room- oh that’s right- you don’t think the Courts can interpret the Constitution because you won’t risk being told you are wrong about original intent. What a bunch of hypocrites you must be.
Click to expand...
Meaning you don't know shit from apple butter. Your ignorance is beyond bounds.

Just because people disagree on details does not mean they do not have an agreedd primary intent. They can disagree on details, work out a compromise, andd produce an outcome of unified intent. Besides, you seem to think differing on details means differing on overall intent to begin with. WRONG, dipshit. They all had ONE central intent in mind when they met in the Constitutional Convention. And that intent was to create a stronger federal government, limited by a strong constitution. That is what the founders did: tehy established a federal government, and wrote a strong constitution to limit its authority. As has been pointed out REPEATEDLY, no one founder had ALL their desires included. Yet NOT ONE FOUNDER supported in any way your proposal that the Constitution be reinterpreted BY THE GOVERNMENT as needed BY GOVERNMENT.

If they intended changes to come about as you say WHY DID THEY WRITE SUCH A STRONG AMENDMENT PROCESS? You are COMPELTEY clueless. Your conclusions have ZERO logic in them.

You are pulling your theories out of your ass. You pull quotes to show Washington wanted more federal authority. SO WHAT? I agree with you that Washington wanted more federal authority. I pointed out Washington wanted more federal authority in many areas. Problem is, he didn't get what he wanted. And EVEN SO, even though Washington's desires for certain federal authority were left out of the Constitution, he has stated unequivocally he disagrees with your interpretation of what they intended as a means of change. Get it, dipshit? He LOST when it came to including many of his desires for federal authority, yet as President, he STILL did not want or promote or agree with the authority to reinterpret things more to his liking. Isn't that a clue for you? Are you so hopelessly anti-constitution that you cannot see the very examples you give to show differentiation of ideas come from people who, in the end, disagree with you on your central stance?

And THERE is your original intent. They disagreed on many of the fine details, but in the end AGREED to write a constitution whose purpose was and is to define and limit the role and authority of the federal government.

Original intent exists. It was written into the Constitution after much debate and compromise. It is not "after my own image" you lying sack of shit, because the original intent I personally would have preferred would have been far closer to the anti-federalist POV. I think the authority over interstate commerce should have been strictly and specifically limited to making sure one state could not implement a policy harmful to the other states. I love the Bill of Rights, and think there should have been more of them. I would have liked to see about 100 pages listing things the federal government was forever forbidden to do.

And, BTW, asshole, I do put my money where my mouth is. I support, through donations and through written words, those politicians who believe in the Constitution, who follow its strictures even when they disagree with the outcomes of those strictures. I support the appointment of justices who limit their decisions on comparing the effect of a law with the limitations defined by the Constitution as written. The hypocrisy, if any, lies in the view that the Constitution is supposed to protect your sorry ass from a tyranny while giving the government free reign to interpret it as they wish.
 
flaja said:
Seeing as how not a few posters here have it in their mind that there is something known as original intent that is supposed to be the only way to determine the meaning of the United States Constitution....
Click to expand...
I never said it was the only way just the right way. Liberals want it to be a "living document" which basically means that they want to change its intent which basically means that they hate the Constitution. *shrug*
 
Damocles said:
Says the guy that pretends his version of "intent" is the real one. You have only presented that you believe that words like "General Welfare" were added because they intended change to come through the courts and through interpretations by the later legislators.

I go by the Federalist papers and historical writing of the people who actually wrote it, and comprehend that changes come through the process of Amendments, as they repeat consistently throughout.
Click to expand...

The constitution is vague; I don't think this was anything the founders intended. It's just that they didn't know any better; this was the first constitution, after all. It was vague enough that many different founders probably had completely different views of different clauses that they themselves were writing down.

This is why modern law is written in pedantic legalese; to eliminate as much ambiguity as possible.
 
The general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause are certainly stretched now far beyond anything the founders could have imagined; this is obvious. But between them they give by far the greatest power to the federal government. If the founders didn't want a government that could regulate trade and institute social welfare programs, they should have mentioned it. Libertarians want to annihilate all of this by saying this "is not what the founders intended" - well why not? If it was the founders intent, they should have been a little more clear.

The number of uses of the word "not" has absolutely no bearing on how big a government the constitution allows, BTW SMY.
 
Watermark said:
The constitution is vague; I don't think this was anything the founders intended. It's just that they didn't know any better; this was the first constitution, after all. It was vague enough that many different founders probably had completely different views of different clauses that they themselves were writing down.
Click to expand...
they spend years debating and modifying this constitution. do you think they did this to make it vague?

Watermark said:
This is why modern law is written in pedantic legalese; to eliminate as much ambiguity as possible.
Click to expand...

yeah, that really works, doesn't it. :rolleyes:
 
Watermark said:
The general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause are certainly stretched now far beyond anything the founders could have imagined; this is obvious. But between them they give by far the greatest power to the federal government. If the founders didn't want a government that could regulate trade and institute social welfare programs, they should have mentioned it. Libertarians want to annihilate all of this by saying this "is not what the founders intended" - well why not? If it was the founders intent, they should have been a little more clear.

The number of uses of the word "not" has absolutely no bearing on how big a government the constitution allows, BTW SMY.
Click to expand...
At that time could they have imagined how far the social programs of today would go? Shoot these people would be amazed by the fact that we throw away paper. What government had the type of cradle-to-grave care that seems to be proposed nowadays? Would they be able to envision this and thus protect against it?
 
Watermark said:
The general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause are certainly stretched now far beyond anything the founders could have imagined; this is obvious. But between them they give by far the greatest power to the federal government. If the founders didn't want a government that could regulate trade and institute social welfare programs, they should have mentioned it. Libertarians want to annihilate all of this by saying this "is not what the founders intended" - well why not? If it was the founders intent, they should have been a little more clear.

The number of uses of the word "not" has absolutely no bearing on how big a government the constitution allows, BTW SMY.
Click to expand...
Just MAYBE that is why they added the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights - to make it CLEAR that if they did not SPECIFICALLY grant a power to the federal government, then it was not intended to BE a power of the federal government. Note the exact opposite is written for the states and the People, in that non-enumerated rights and powers were reserved to the states or the People. But for the federal government, they say if a power is NOT enumerated, then it does NOT belong to the feds.

How much clearer must they be for people to comprehend? The fact is, the Constitution IS quite clear. It's just that certain types don't LIKE what the Constitution actually says, so they make up a bunch of nonsense about it being vague and therefore open to interpretation.
 
Good Luck said:
Just MAYBE that is why they added the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights - to make it CLEAR that if they did not SPECIFICALLY grant a power to the federal government, then it was not intended to BE a power of the federal government. Note the exact opposite is written for the states and the People, in that non-enumerated rights and powers were reserved to the states or the People. But for the federal government, they say if a power is NOT enumerated, then it does NOT belong to the feds.

How much clearer must they be for people to comprehend? The fact is, the Constitution IS quite clear. It's just that certain types don't LIKE what the Constitution actually says, so they make up a bunch of nonsense about it being vague and therefore open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

And what powers are the federal government claiming that the constitution doesn't give them? None.
 
Damocles said:
At that time could they have imagined how far the social programs of today would go? Shoot these people would be amazed by the fact that we throw away paper. What government had the type of cradle-to-grave care that seems to be proposed nowadays? Would they be able to envision this and thus protect against it?
Click to expand...

I doubt they'd want to protect against it. They'd be offended that you people deny others the natural right of healthcare in the rich modern age.

Anyway, they gave us the power to do it, and that's all that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top