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

[Nostra]

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.

I think "originalism" is bullshit. It starts with a number of very flawed premises:

1. That the Constitution is a "conservative document", and that the Founders were conservatives. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution were the most radically liberal documents in the history of the world. Government of, for and by the people was hair on fire crazy. The French Revolution didn't occur until 13 years after the American Revolution so the idea of a populist uprising and rebellion was unheard of.

The "originalists" are hard right conservatives, who would have supported the British in the War of Independence. Of course the Founders were all elite white men, and many were slave owners, whose writings on rights and freedoms seem more than a bit ironic in light of their ownership and treatment of slaves.

2. The Founders intended the Constitution to be a "living document" - one which changed with the times, within the framework of the Constitution. The rights and protections were enacted as Amendments because these would change over time and need to be amended to keep up with the times.

The originalists want to interpret the rights and protections as if they were living in the 18th Century. The Founders wrote a document which reflected their own time, but intended it change to reflect the coming times. The words " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution . . . ."

How can you do achieve any of these goals in modern time, while viewing the nation through the eyes of 18th Century slave owners?

Or perhaps the real goal of originalists, who established that black people should be counted as 3/5 of a white man, and women had no rights, is more to revert to white elite rule and the subjugation of women and non-whites.

I think "originalism" is bullshit.

That confirms originalism is the right way for a SC Justice to rule. You have never been right on any subject regarding US Politics and our system of government.

Why don't you worry about your shithole country and the cuck you have running it?

 

[Nostra]

Where in the constitution does it give demofks the right to kill babies?

"Pursuit of happiness"?

 

[Nostra]

Regardless you where they are maintained, they are still YOUR records. How are cell phone records any different than your tax records, bank records or land line records?

What about mail records. Are the records tracking your absentee ballot "your records"? And require a subpoena for the board of elections to track it?

Cops can't just seize and open your ballot to see how you vote without just cause.

One of the dumbest analogies ever tried on this board by a single digit IQ Dimwinger.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I think "originalism" is bullshit. It starts with a number of very flawed premises:

1. That the Constitution is a "conservative document", and that the Founders were conservatives. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution were the most radically liberal documents in the history of the world. Government of, for and by the people was hair on fire crazy. The French Revolution didn't occur until 13 years after the American Revolution so the idea of a populist uprising and rebellion was unheard of.

The "originalists" are hard right conservatives, who would have supported the British in the War of Independence. Of course the Founders were all elite white men, and many were slave owners, whose writings on rights and freedoms seem more than a bit ironic in light of their ownership and treatment of slaves.

2. The Founders intended the Constitution to be a "living document" - one which changed with the times, within the framework of the Constitution. The rights and protections were enacted as Amendments because these would change over time and need to be amended to keep up with the times.

The originalists want to interpret the rights and protections as if they were living in the 18th Century. The Founders wrote a document which reflected their own time, but intended it change to reflect the coming times. The words " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution . . . ."

How can you do achieve any of these goals in modern time, while viewing the nation through the eyes of 18th Century slave owners?

Or perhaps the real goal of originalists, who established that black people should be counted as 3/5 of a white man, and women had no rights, is more to revert to white elite rule and the subjugation of women and non-whites.

Your ignorance is showing. The preamble says to "promote the General Welfare, not provide for it. There are clauses in Article 1, Section 8 that promote the General Welfare, by providing for actions of the federal government that the States could not do alone. Examples are the postal service and patient/copyright provisions. The taxing clause provides for the funding of those activities, it was never intended to be interpreted as doing anything else. The 3/5ths provision was a compromise to get the slave holding States to ratify the Constitution. It's effect denied congressional representation to the slave holding States who wanted slaves to be counted as a full person instead of property as the abolitionist States wanted.

.

 

[fncceo]

such as what government powers exist during a pandemic.

In fact, pandemics, epidemics, plagues, pestilence, and disease were rather more common in the 18th Century than they are in the 21st.

 

[OKTexas]

The law specifically disagreed, there's nothing originalist about that. Where does the Constitution say the courts can say a law means something that the authors of the law rejected.

.

This is clear when using textualism, that before trying to gleen the intent of those that wrote the law, you first go by the clear reading of the text they wrote.

And they clearly rejected paying subsidies for the federal exchange. Not only did they do it once, but 7 times throughout the law. How much more clear could they make it?

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Every political faction, including conservatives, have twisted the wording to fit their agenda, but ya, tell us how you support originalism. A true Originalist would advocate gitting rid of all the Admendments that have been added through history and getting back to the 'Orignial' Constitution.

That's a lie, Amendments were specifically provided for in the original Constitution.

.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Every political faction, including conservatives, have twisted the wording to fit their agenda, but ya, tell us how you support originalism. A true Originalist would advocate gitting rid of all the Admendments that have been added through history and getting back to the 'Orignial' Constitution.

That's a lie, Amendments were specifically provided for in the original Constitution.

.

You can't expect a Dimwinger to have actually read the Constitution, much less comprehend it.

 

[OKTexas]

Like apportioning Congressional seats by people. The amendment says PEOPLE. Since we can agree that illegal immigrants are people, they should be counted.

That is actually a problem, since Scalia in Heller V DC did a dance in order to change the meaning of "the people" as different in the 2nd, then in the text of the constitution, or in the bill of rights.

LMAO, no where in the Constitution did the founders conflate the rights of the people with States rights and powers or the powers granted to the federal government. The people always carries a meaning of individual citizens.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Future congresses have the authority to reduce or eliminate that funding, since budgets are done year to year, not for multiple years. It's done all the time.

.

Then let me give you the constitutional guarantee against that.

SECTION 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The next congress has to pay the salaries of federal judges, no matter what law they write.

Sure, that's in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Where does it say congress can't reduce the pay of new justices, if they choose to do so?

.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

LOL

Laugh all you want, kiddo. I'm still right.

 

[Ben Thomson]

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.

Every political faction, including conservatives, have twisted the wording to fit their agenda, but ya, tell us how you support originalism. A true Originalist would advocate gitting rid of all the Admendments that have been added through history and getting back to the 'Orignial' Constitution.

That's a lie, Amendments were specifically provided for in the original Constitution.

.

You can't expect a Dimwinger to have actually read the Constitution, much less comprehend it.

Amendments were specifically provided for in order to change the Constitution when needed..so much for 'originality'...You can't expect a Trumptard to have actually read the Constitution, much less comprehend it.

 

[OKTexas]

Regardless you where they are maintained, they are still YOUR records. How are cell phone records any different than your tax records, bank records or land line records?

What about mail records. Are the records tracking your absentee ballot "your records"? And require a subpoena for the board of elections to track it?

Who assigns the tracking number, you or the board of elections?

Who assigns the phone number? The phone company.

Any more deflections you'd like to throw around. I chose my cell phone number from a list of available numbers. Now why don't you answer my question?

.

 

[OKTexas]

In the third decision, the court said that future congresses are bound to pay subsidies to the insurance companies when congress said they wouldn't fund them, and precedents say no congress can bind the actions of future congresses.

This is of course wrong. Congress has and does bind congress to fund future obligations they write into law. The most obvious is when they fund the military for a period not to exceed 2 years, but those 2 years can extend beyond the current congress.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: [The Congress shall have Power . . .] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Future congresses have the authority to reduce or eliminate that funding, since budgets are done year to year, not for multiple years. It's done all the time.

.

Congress can fund all they want..the POTUS can move that money around to fund anything he wants..Trump and a conservative court says so.

.

 

[meaner gene]

Regardless you where they are maintained, they are still YOUR records. How are cell phone records any different than your tax records, bank records or land line records?

What about mail records. Are the records tracking your absentee ballot "your records"? And require a subpoena for the board of elections to track it?

Cops can't just seize and open your ballot to see how you vote without just cause.

Pay attention, we're talking about metadata, or tracking, not the contents.

 

[meaner gene]

The 3/5ths provision was a compromise to get the slave holding States to ratify the Constitution. It's effect denied congressional representation to the slave holding States who wanted slaves to be counted as a full person instead of property as the abolitionist States wanted.

Just the opposite, it gave them 3/5ths more congressional power. As slaves were not considered to be "people" they could not be citizens, or to vote.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Who decides what it originally meant?

Read the Federalist papers. They're widely regarded as both the authority for understanding as well as the blueprint for the Constitution, Mr. Civics Class.

To borrow only one reference to them, this from the University of Virginia, they are described as "being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution for the U.S. on questions as to its genuine meaning."

Jefferson praised it highly in late 1788 by saying, that it is: "...in my opinion, the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written."

I can keep offering examples from the very mouths of those who wrote it. Would you like that?

What about George Washington's view of the Federalist?

Well, let us learn...

"As the perusal of the political papers under the signature of Publius has afforded me great satisfaction, I shall certainly consider them as claiming a most distinguished place in my Library. I have read every performance which has been printed on one side and the other of the great question lately agitated (so far as I have been able to obtain them) and, without an unmeaning compliment, I will say, that I have seen no other so well calculated (in my judgment) to produce conviction on an unbiased Mind, as the Production of your triumvirate. When the transient circumstances and fugitive performances which attended this Crisis shall have disappeared, That Work will merit the Notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly and ably discussed the principles of freedom and the topics of government, which will be always interesting to mankind so long as they shall be connected in Civil Society." (Emphasis per original.)

 

[meaner gene]

This is clear when using textualism, that before trying to gleen the intent of those that wrote the law, you first go by the clear reading of the text they wrote.

And they clearly rejected paying subsidies for the federal exchange. Not only did they do it once, but 7 times throughout the law. How much more clear could they make it?

.

This is why we need professional lawmakers. So they put their intent into carefully chosen words. Often laws have unintended consequences when lawmakers don't fully vet the language.

 

[OKTexas]

The 3/5ths provision was a compromise to get the slave holding States to ratify the Constitution. It's effect denied congressional representation to the slave holding States who wanted slaves to be counted as a full person instead of property as the abolitionist States wanted.

Just the opposite, it gave them 3/5ths more congressional power. As slaves were not considered to be "people" they could not be citizens, or to vote.

Perhaps you should do some research on the topic. The effect is they got 40% less congressional representation than they would have, had they gotten their way of counting all slaves as a person. With the passage of the 14th Amendment they actually gained representatives.

.

 

[meaner gene]

LMAO, no where in the Constitution did the founders conflate the rights of the people with States rights and powers or the powers granted to the federal government. The people always carries a meaning of individual citizens.

.

NOPE

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The people to peaceably assemble, is a collective, not an individual right.

One person is not allowed to stand in the middle of the street blocking traffic. But 100 people can do so.