Originalism vs Evolving Constitutionalism: Constitution

[Necroghastia]

I feel like you're missing my point.

Your point is nonsensical to anyone who actually understands originalism. You're making a point against a fictional caricature of what you want originalism to be, not what it actually is.

And what do you think my point is?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Your point is nonsensical to anyone who actually understands originalism. You're making a point against a fictional caricature of what you want originalism to be, not what it actually is.

And what do you think my point is?

That amendments go against originalism because it's changing the document which is just brain dead.

[Ethel mermania]

Omg that's the most braindead understanding of originalism ever. Amendments change the constitution, their intent/context stands on equal footing with every other part of the constitution. Originalism has nothing to do with making new amendments, only interpreting existing ones.

I feel like you're missing my point.

You don't have a good one.

When the document defines a method of change it can be changed. Originalisn would mean sticking to the intent of the change. Expanding the 14th amendment to cover gay marriage is an example of expanding the intent of the 14th.

[Ard al Islam]

I prefer originalist interpretations, especially when it comes to the Bill of Rights, especially when it comes to the First Amendment

[Necroghastia]

And what do you think my point is?

That amendments go against originalism because it's changing the document which is just brain dead.

And because there is a way to make amendments, the framers never intended for originalism to begin with, because that's one of the ways it is a living document.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That amendments go against originalism because it's changing the document which is just brain dead.

And because there is a way to make amendments, the framers never intended for originalism to begin with.

This brings us full circle to you not understanding originalism and instead just making a caricature to argue against.

[Middle Barael]

What on earth is Hasselhoffism supposed to mean? Is this somehow like David Hasselhof?

[Ethel mermania]

That amendments go against originalism because it's changing the document which is just brain dead.

And because there is a way to make amendments, the framers never intended for originalism to begin with.

No, they intended the document to be changed if it required to be changed. They expected the words to mean what they meant when the amendment was passed. The amendment process is the beauty of the American constitution.

That said, I have soured on common law, and would prefer civil law.

[Ethel mermania]

What on earth is Hasselhoffism supposed to mean? Is this somehow like David Hasselhof?

Yes, only he can save the day.

[Necroghastia]

And because there is a way to make amendments, the framers never intended for originalism to begin with.

No, they intended the document to be changed if it required to be changed. They expected the words to mean what they meant when the amendment was passed.

See, this is why I'm saying Originalism is illogical. The letter of the law isn't supposed to change, except when it can. That makes no sense to me.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, they intended the document to be changed if it required to be changed. They expected the words to mean what they meant when the amendment was passed.

See, this is why I'm saying Originalism is illogical. The letter of the law isn't supposed to change, except when it can. That makes no sense to me.

It makes perfect sense though. Written law means what it says and if a situation arises where people feel it needs to be changed there's a mechanism to do it. It's incredibly simple.

[Ethel mermania]

No, they intended the document to be changed if it required to be changed. They expected the words to mean what they meant when the amendment was passed.

See, this is why I'm saying Originalism is illogical. The letter of the law isn't supposed to change, except when it can. That makes no sense to me.

I think you are confusing the writing of and interpretation of the written word. Originalism is how we interpret the written words of the law, not how they were created.

Look at privacy laws, the constitution only talks about privacy as the only agent to effect it is the state. Today we realize their are private actors that are bigger threats to personal privacy than the state, and laws must be written to account for that.

Also The law has to keep up with technology. Originalism would say when their needs to be something new, rewrite it. The living document idea would be to just expand the meaning of the current law. For example treating the internet the way treat telephone companies would be the changing times requires changing interpretations way.

[Punished UMN]

No, they intended the document to be changed if it required to be changed. They expected the words to mean what they meant when the amendment was passed.

See, this is why I'm saying Originalism is illogical. The letter of the law isn't supposed to change, except when it can. That makes no sense to me.

This is where you're not understanding originalism. Nowhere do originalists say the letter of the law isn't supposed to change. In fact, the position of originalists is specifically that only the letter of the law is supposed to change

[Greed and Death]

This question doesn't even make sense lol. Amendments make the most sense in an originalist context.

Originalism, boiled down to the bare essentials, is saying only original intent/context matters, no?
By making amendments, you are subverting that original intent.

No because the constitution has a section dedicated to amendments. Ie the original intent of the constitution was that it would be amended.
So an originalist says if you do not like the original meaning/intent/etc then the people can amend the constitution.

A living constitutionalist says I do not think this provision of the constitution serves the public good as it has been interpreted if 5 supreme court justices agree we will create a new meaning.

[Deacarsia]

The whole debate thus far is utterly absurd.

I cannot tell if the anti-originalists just are being trolls, or actually have so little grasp on the terms and concepts under discussion.

It is almost surreal.

[Old Tyrannia]

Above all else, a codified constitution is a functional legal document that establishes how the state is governed. I don't see how any legal document can be interpreted in any way other than the plain meaning of the text, otherwise it's not fulfilling it's purpose as a legal document. I think the "evolving interpretation" approach to the American constitution is an outcome of the absurd, quasi-religious veneration Americans have for their constitution and its authors. Religious scriptures are supposed to be analysed and interpreted, not legal documents, but the constitution is treated as the former more than the latter by many Americans.

To carry the analogy further, legal documents and law codes can be edited and rewritten to suit changing circumstances, but religious scriptures can't because they contain by definition transcendent truths that are not bound to a particular time or place. Since this is how many Americans treat their constitution, it's not really practically possible to alter the constitution even though there is technically a process in place enabling them to do so. As such progressives in America are left with no alternative but to "reinterpret" the constitution as an "evolving document," letting them change the meaning without actually changing the text. This is problematic because it essentially grants the Supreme Court the ability to alter American law unilaterally, at least in practice. Ironically it's the American conservative attitude that the constitution is an almost sacred document containing eternal and unchanging truths that makes the American progressive approach to constitutional interpretation both viable and necessary.

In short, "evolutionism" in constitutional interpretation is a ridiculous position that makes absolutely no logical sense but fits with the political aims of its proponents and with the generally ridiculous way in which Americans view their constitution.

[New haven america]

Originalism is just a fancy word for forcing conservatism on the liberal/progressive majority of the country.

[Old Tyrannia]

Originalism is just a fancy word for forcing conservatism on the liberal/progressive majority of the country.

It's interesting that you equate rule of law with "conservatism."

[New haven america]

Originalism is just a fancy word for forcing conservatism on the liberal/progressive majority of the country.

It's interesting that you equate rule of law with "conservatism."

I equate antiquated rule of law that does more harm than good with conservatism, yes.

As does the US Republican Party, which has tried its damndest to fill the SCotUS with Originalists because that helps their platform. (The most Recent example being Amy Barrett)

[Immoren]

Burn constitution at start of every new decade and have randomly selected kindergarten come up with the new one for each decade.

[The Two Jerseys]

This is not even a question. Once the constitution was made, do you think they thought of giving people to right to own AR-15’s? No, because it didn’t exist back then. Being an evolving constitutionalist is best for both liberals and conservatives.

Would the people who were okay with people owning their own private battleships be okay with people owning AR-15s?

The answer is yes.

[Loben III]

This is not even a question. Once the constitution was made, do you think they thought of giving people to right to own AR-15’s? No, because it didn’t exist back then. Being an evolving constitutionalist is best for both liberals and conservatives.

What part of shall not be infringed is hard to understand?

[Sundiata]

The American founding fathers were liberal men of the slave-owning merchant class. The constitution was written with their interests in mind, of course the document should evolve to reflect higher interests.

[The Two Jerseys]

This is not even a question. Once the constitution was made, do you think they thought of giving people to right to own AR-15’s? No, because it didn’t exist back then. Being an evolving constitutionalist is best for both liberals and conservatives.

What part of shall not be infringed is hard to understand?

The Continental Congress tried to buy a musket that was capable of firing 30 rounds a minute in 1777. They obviously knew that the technology for rapid-fire weapons existed. If they didn't want people to own those kinds of weapons, you think they would've mentioned it somewhere...

[Ethel mermania]

What part of shall not be infringed is hard to understand?

The Continental Congress tried to buy a musket that was capable of firing 30 rounds a minute in 1777. They obviously knew that the technology for rapid-fire weapons existed. If they didn't want people to own those kinds of weapons, you think they would've mentioned it somewhere...

They did have large cannons that could fire cannister. Better than a ar-15