Constitutional Originalism

pmills

pmills

Active member
1025cb%20scalia%20-%20originalism.jpg


 
i thought you'd like it. I know you write to Judge Scalia's Judicial Ethics Corner all the time. Don't be embarrassed.
 
Sure it could; I could say i know you write to Judge Scalia's Judicial Ethics Corner with your underpants on backwards while whistling on the moon.
 
Oringinalism is silly, for a couple of reasons, one 'what the founders intended' right cause every founding father agreed on every issue. Not. They barely passed almost every clause many left the convention and no one was completely happy with the outcome. Also, they meant for the constitution to be an evolving document hence the 9th amendment, and the ability to amend in general. Many even thought that constitutional conventions would form multiple times to improve the document. (not that i want the tea party to do that, haha) In addition, the document institutionalized slavery and a weak executive, and a represented body that was not elected democratically. All these things have changed over time as society has progressed. And a lot of good has come from it. Originalism is inconsistent, unintelligent, and illogical.
 
oh alright. I really would enjoy listening about it, i think in some regards originalism can be intelligent, but mostly people use in improperly and it annoys me.
 
This picture accurately describes what justice scalia says "constitutional originalism" is. So regardless of this is the correct definition of it, the post does a good job of portraying scalia's views on things, such as the 14th amendment only applying to male ex slaves and not applying to women, gays, non citizens or anything besides African Americans.
 
impossible. woozy is guaranteed, per the constitution, to have an awesome life. nothing I say could have a negative effect on that.
 
the 9th amendment was put into place to add things to the constitution so in that case, it was very much intended to be a evolving document, but it wasnt put in place to take away amendments
the supreme court is the group who limits and defines the amendments. the first 10 were put into place because these were very prominent injustices they suffered while under british rule. they wanted to make sure the country was truly free, and free to do these two things. there are 10 freedoms in there, that arent even a little specific to one time period, and should always be upheld
 
and so not using a originalist approach to interpretation of the constitution means that you are going to limit rights? lol wut?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top