Why 'originalism', as the only method of constitutional interpretation, is misguided

Constant ideological disagreement on constitutional interpretation
should never have been this much of a problem.

Many history scholars claim that many of the founders wanted to include a stipulation
than a new constitutional convention be convened every twenty years
in an effort to keep the constitution relevant with modernity.

Had we done that, even if it were every fifty years, we wouldn't be the dumpster fire that we are now.

The mistakes that the founders made in designing our form of government
have not been subjected to review,
and our present form of government
which affords disproportionate political representation to our most regressive, least intellectual people,
is a bad joke when contrasted to more modern democracies.

When did "checks and balances" become synonymous with hopeless gridlock,
and why is hopeless gridlock so celebrated by so many pathetically timid people?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
subject to abuse......that is why changing the law through "interpretation" must be rejected.......again, if matter change and you feel the constitution is inadequate then schedule a vote to see if voters agree with you.....don't leave it up to the agenda of a single judge.....
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood my point, so I'll reword it.

Judicial interpretation via 'judicial philosophy' is the INESCAPABLE, UNAVOIDABLE, IMMUTABLE, INCORRIGIBLE fact of judicial life.

One man's 'activist' is another man's 'correct interpreter'.

What that means, PostmodernProphet, is that neither side, conservatives nor liberals, have a monopoly on the correct judicial philosophy.

There simply is no way to avoid 'interpreting' the constitution.

It can't be done.

Sorry.

Hell, what the second amendment actually meant wasn't a settled argument until Heller.

And now the right is trying to reinterpret the establishment clause. "It doesn't mean separation of church and state', some are saying, now.

Give me a break.
 
Seems to me Originalism would focus on origins as textualism just focuses on controlling people by power of suggestion to be able to control outcomes when evolving is a process the outcome twice since never same results again as originally arrived.

Universe produces never duplicated results occupying time now, textualism is recording the events done in series parallel time and translated into relative time sequence creating a past, present, future set of variables when living keeps separating results by details added constantly.

What is relative time, distance between generation gaps socially journaled by people observing everything and comparing all the individual parts separately.

Actual timing of results vs relative time statistical averages used against newest arrivals by previous generations gaps living. Rule of law creating specific social practices all 5 generation gaps must follow or else the separate societies vanish with each generation forward..
 
Publius said:
Well, all that matters is the constitution.

And the only upheld constitutional argument that can be remotely applied, is the right to privacy. a constitutional penumbra.

So, your point is irrelevant.

Not only that, not all children are born out of consensual sex. So, if you allow abortions on rape babies, you are inconsistent. If you don't allow it, then your premise is baseless.
Click to expand...
leftists always resort to bright line extremism and hyperbole when they have no real position. It's why all of your arguments fall apart.
 
Publius said:
What that means, PostmodernProphet, is that neither side, conservatives nor liberals, have a monopoly on the correct judicial philosophy.
Click to expand...
fortunately Trump was able to fill three seats on the SC and hundreds on lower courts.......his picks are people who disagree with you.....it made America greater.........I look forward to his second term......
 
Publius said:
What you are referring to is a fetus before viability and whether or not that fetus has achieved 'personhood'.

That's a philosophical point that can only be ruled on by judicial decree, and the SCOTUS won't touch the subject.

Until then, what's in a body falls under the concept of the right of bodily autonomy and therefore your point is moot.
Click to expand...
oh hell no.

there's a reality beyond your word games, dumbass.

what if we legally decree to remove your personhood?

these concepts are straight up Nazi totalitarian mass murderer in origin.

please stop being evil.
 
Publius said:
The bill of rights has 10 items.
The framers NEVER meant to intend that there were only 10 rights.

They leave it up to the Supreme Court to enlist more, as the times and circumstances give rise to them.

Such was the right to privacy, and it goes on from there.

But, when it comes to fundamental rights, fundamental rights are NEVER a 'state' issue, in my opinion, they are or at least should be a federal issue, meaning 'we the people' of AMERICA.

  • Federalist No. 78 (Judicial Review and Flexibility of the Constitution):

    • Written by Alexander Hamilton, this paper discusses the judiciary's role in interpreting the Constitution. Hamilton argues that the judiciary has the duty to declare void any legislative acts that are contrary to the Constitution. This implies a role for the judiciary in protecting rights that may not be explicitly listed in the Constitution but are consistent with its principles.
    • Hamilton notes that the Constitution is intended to be a lasting document, able to adapt to new circumstances. The judiciary's role includes interpreting the Constitution in light of changing times, which could involve recognizing new rights as fundamental.
    • In this essay, Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights, fearing that enumerating certain rights could imply that other rights do not exist. He suggests that the Constitution itself is a Bill of Rights because it establishes a government with limited powers.
    • The Ninth Amendment, which was later included in the Bill of Rights, reflects this concern. It states that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that other rights do not exist. This supports the idea that the Framers intended for unenumerated rights, like the right to privacy, to be protected.
Click to expand...
only ten are defensible by the constitution.

they're the best ones.

you can't don't even want those.

you're the ones not even fulfilling or desiring to fulfill the basic wisdom of freedom contained within them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top