Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

[JustAGuy1]

So let’s begin with a definition. In short, originalism is the idea that the words of the Constitution are the law, and they should be understood to mean what they meant when they were written and ratified. While this proposition is straightforward, the implications are profound. As Judge Barrett explains, the Constitution’s “meaning doesn’t change over time,” and as a judge, she does not have authority “to update it or infuse (her) own policy views into it.”

In other words, the Constitution doesn’t mean whatever you or I might want it to mean. The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society or ensuring that my preferred policies prevail even when they lose at the ballot box. The Constitution, as ratified by the people, means what it says. And constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.

Judges looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will not always agree. The law can be obscure and complex, and the Supreme Court decides hard questions on which smart people have probably disagreed. But originalist judges recognize an obligation to faithfully interpret the law as written even when the answer is difficult to discern.

Opinion: Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

Originalism is a commitment to interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

www.jsonline.com

An opinion piece but I agree with Originalism.

 

[konradv]

Who decides what it originally meant?

 

[JustAGuy1]

That's a rhetorical question right?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Who decides what it originally meant?

Read English? The language has not changed much since it was written.

 

[cnm]

Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

How else could 'well regulated militia' mean personal self defence?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So let’s begin with a definition. In short, originalism is the idea that the words of the Constitution are the law, and they should be understood to mean what they meant when they were written and ratified. While this proposition is straightforward, the implications are profound. As Judge Barrett explains, the Constitution’s “meaning doesn’t change over time,” and as a judge, she does not have authority “to update it or infuse (her) own policy views into it.”

In other words, the Constitution doesn’t mean whatever you or I might want it to mean. The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society or ensuring that my preferred policies prevail even when they lose at the ballot box. The Constitution, as ratified by the people, means what it says. And constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.

Judges looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will not always agree. The law can be obscure and complex, and the Supreme Court decides hard questions on which smart people have probably disagreed. But originalist judges recognize an obligation to faithfully interpret the law as written even when the answer is difficult to discern.

Opinion: Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

Originalism is a commitment to interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

www.jsonline.com

An opinion piece but I agree with Originalism.

Yes.

"...the right of the people....shall not be infringed...." does NOT mean, the right of the people shall be infringed.

Pretty simple really.

 

[colfax_m]

The Constitution was written in 1787. Germ theory didn't really exist until a few decades later.

My problem with originalism is trying to apply the original intent of a document to circumstances that they could have never conceived, such as what government powers exist during a pandemic.

 

[konradv]

Who decides what it originally meant?

Read English? The language has not changed much since it was written.

If that were true, we wouldn't need a SC. They were having arguments about what it meant before the document was even 20 years old.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Constitution was written in 1787. Germ theory didn't really exist until a few decades later.

My problem with originalism is trying to apply the original intent of a document to circumstances that they could have never conceived, such as what government powers exist during a pandemic.

Your problems run much deeper than that

Next week Barrett will be confirmed....find something else to bitch about. Everyone knew she was a lock

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Who decides what it originally meant?

Read English? The language has not changed much since it was written.

If that were true, we wouldn't need a SC. They were having arguments about what it meant before the document was even 20 years old.

Was that confusion, ignorance, or intended? Reference Marbury v. Madison (1803)

 

[konradv]

So let’s begin with a definition. In short, originalism is the idea that the words of the Constitution are the law, and they should be understood to mean what they meant when they were written and ratified. While this proposition is straightforward, the implications are profound. As Judge Barrett explains, the Constitution’s “meaning doesn’t change over time,” and as a judge, she does not have authority “to update it or infuse (her) own policy views into it.”

In other words, the Constitution doesn’t mean whatever you or I might want it to mean. The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society or ensuring that my preferred policies prevail even when they lose at the ballot box. The Constitution, as ratified by the people, means what it says. And constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.

Judges looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will not always agree. The law can be obscure and complex, and the Supreme Court decides hard questions on which smart people have probably disagreed. But originalist judges recognize an obligation to faithfully interpret the law as written even when the answer is difficult to discern.

Opinion: Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

Originalism is a commitment to interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

www.jsonline.com

An opinion piece but I agree with Originalism.

Yes.

"...the right of the people....shall not be infringed...." does NOT mean, the right of the people shall be infringed.

Pretty simple really.

"The people", i.e. you can't outlaw gun ownership, but registering guns or preventing certain "persons" from owning guns is an entirely different story.

 

[bendog]

So let’s begin with a definition. In short, originalism is the idea that the words of the Constitution are the law, and they should be understood to mean what they meant when they were written and ratified. While this proposition is straightforward, the implications are profound. As Judge Barrett explains, the Constitution’s “meaning doesn’t change over time,” and as a judge, she does not have authority “to update it or infuse (her) own policy views into it.”

In other words, the Constitution doesn’t mean whatever you or I might want it to mean. The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society or ensuring that my preferred policies prevail even when they lose at the ballot box. The Constitution, as ratified by the people, means what it says. And constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.

Judges looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will not always agree. The law can be obscure and complex, and the Supreme Court decides hard questions on which smart people have probably disagreed. But originalist judges recognize an obligation to faithfully interpret the law as written even when the answer is difficult to discern.

Opinion: Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

Originalism is a commitment to interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

www.jsonline.com

An opinion piece but I agree with Originalism.

Will this mean less plenary power when dems in office and more when gopers are in office? There will still be plenary power, of that the gop will make sure.

 

[bendog]

Who decides what it originally meant?

Read English? The language has not changed much since it was written.

If that were true, we wouldn't need a SC. They were having arguments about what it meant before the document was even 20 years old.

Was that confusion, ignorance, or intended? Reference Marbury v. Madison (1803)

John Adams was asked why they didn't mention god. "We forgot!" LOL

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Constitution was written in 1787. Germ theory didn't really exist until a few decades later.

My problem with originalism is trying to apply the original intent of a document to circumstances that they could have never conceived, such as what government powers exist during a pandemic.

My problem with NOT applying original intent is efforts to "interpret" around the original intent, RATHER THAN AMENDING!!!

If the Constitution does not work, AMEND IT!!!



That's the whole point of the Amendment process. There is a mechanism for updating the document...QUIT IGNORING IT!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So let’s begin with a definition. In short, originalism is the idea that the words of the Constitution are the law, and they should be understood to mean what they meant when they were written and ratified. While this proposition is straightforward, the implications are profound. As Judge Barrett explains, the Constitution’s “meaning doesn’t change over time,” and as a judge, she does not have authority “to update it or infuse (her) own policy views into it.”

In other words, the Constitution doesn’t mean whatever you or I might want it to mean. The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society or ensuring that my preferred policies prevail even when they lose at the ballot box. The Constitution, as ratified by the people, means what it says. And constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.

Judges looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will not always agree. The law can be obscure and complex, and the Supreme Court decides hard questions on which smart people have probably disagreed. But originalist judges recognize an obligation to faithfully interpret the law as written even when the answer is difficult to discern.

Opinion: Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

Originalism is a commitment to interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

www.jsonline.com

An opinion piece but I agree with Originalism.

Yes.

"...the right of the people....shall not be infringed...." does NOT mean, the right of the people shall be infringed.

Pretty simple really.

"The people", i.e. you can't outlaw gun ownership, but registering guns or preventing certain "persons" from owning guns is an entirely different story.

Is requiring a person to register a gun "infringing" on the right? Probably not. But, because the gun grabbers have acted with complete dishonor by trying to argue that the right is not held individually, we cannot trust those cocksucking piece of shit motherfuckers, so NO. WE WILL NOT REGISTER GUNS AND I WILL DIE IN BATTLE AND GO TO VALHALLA OR I WILL HAVE MACHINE GUNS!!!!

The ideal: Felons carry loaded belt-fed machine guns in every school and courthouse in America.

Machine guns or Valhalla!!!!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

How else could 'well regulated militia' mean personal self defence?

You missed, ", the right of the people to bear arms"

That comma is critical

Don't feel bad....99 percent of you dumbfucks miss it.

Poor education?

 

[22lcidw]

Who decides what it originally meant?

The ones who corrupted it with the final curtain not here yet.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The Constitution was written in 1787. Germ theory didn't really exist until a few decades later.

My problem with originalism is trying to apply the original intent of a document to circumstances that they could have never conceived, such as what government powers exist during a pandemic.

Your problems run much deeper than that

Next week Barrett will be confirmed....find something else to bitch about. Everyone knew she was a lock

Your problems run much deeper than that

LMAO...

Colfax is also a Brit. I believe originalism means what it says. Not overly complicated and of course you have to apply todays logic to it.

 

[JustAGuy1]

So let’s begin with a definition. In short, originalism is the idea that the words of the Constitution are the law, and they should be understood to mean what they meant when they were written and ratified. While this proposition is straightforward, the implications are profound. As Judge Barrett explains, the Constitution’s “meaning doesn’t change over time,” and as a judge, she does not have authority “to update it or infuse (her) own policy views into it.”

In other words, the Constitution doesn’t mean whatever you or I might want it to mean. The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society or ensuring that my preferred policies prevail even when they lose at the ballot box. The Constitution, as ratified by the people, means what it says. And constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.

Judges looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will not always agree. The law can be obscure and complex, and the Supreme Court decides hard questions on which smart people have probably disagreed. But originalist judges recognize an obligation to faithfully interpret the law as written even when the answer is difficult to discern.

Opinion: Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

Originalism is a commitment to interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

www.jsonline.com

An opinion piece but I agree with Originalism.

Will this mean less plenary power when dems in office and more when gopers are in office? There will still be plenary power, of that the gop will make sure.

No "Party" has "absolute" power.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Constitution was written in 1787. Germ theory didn't really exist until a few decades later.

My problem with originalism is trying to apply the original intent of a document to circumstances that they could have never conceived, such as what government powers exist during a pandemic.

Your problems run much deeper than that

Next week Barrett will be confirmed....find something else to bitch about. Everyone knew she was a lock

Your problems run much deeper than that

LMAO...

Colfax is also a Brit. I believe originalism means what it says. Not overly complicated and of course you have to apply todays logic to it.

Oooh a stinking Black and Tan?

I don't care much for them....history ya know