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

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Any right that is under regulation is not a right, but a privilege conferred by government. Preventing the criminal and the mentally ill from having firearms is another story separate from the right.

Law-abiding citizens should not be restricted due to the behavior of others in any case.

I note with interest the Democrats' insistence that non-violent felons be restored their right to vote, but go all gummy-lipped when 2nd Amendment rights are mentioned.

 

[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.

Oooh a stinking Black and Tan?

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

Now he won't admit he is a Brit but strangely won't deny it at all. I caught him red handed. Interfering in our election. Explains why he would never answer me when I asked him what state he was from. I just believe we need to be honest here, once you're dishonest your posts become irrelevant.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

That's because you don't hate the US as it was constituted

 

[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

Now he won't admit he is a Brit but strangely won't deny it at all. I caught him red handed. Interfering in our election. Explains why he would never answer me when I asked him what state he was from. I just believe we need to be honest here, once you're dishonest your posts become irrelevant.

I put him on ignore long ago...

I knew there was some reason

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

That's why it came with instructions
As time changes the government was instructed to make amendments as needed.

 

[Billiejeens]

Who decides what it originally meant?

The nine justices.

 

[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.

Oooh a stinking Black and Tan?

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

Now he won't admit he is a Brit but strangely won't deny it at all. I caught him red handed. Interfering in our election. Explains why he would never answer me when I asked him what state he was from. I just believe we need to be honest here, once you're dishonest your posts become irrelevant.

I put him on ignore long ago...

I knew there was some reason

Your intuition served you well. I as a matter of policy don't ever put people on ignore.

 

[colfax_m]

Not overly complicated and of course you have to apply todays logic to it.

Then it's not really originalism anymore.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Not overly complicated and of course you have to apply todays logic to it.

Then it's not really originalism anymore.

Of course it is.

If I state in my original document 300 yrs ago that people should go to the theater for one hour a day and in today's world, they watch Netflix for that same hour, I would consider that part of the original plan. It is done for entertainment and because we have advanced we don't need to be super literal. I hope this explanation suffices. How is London?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not overly complicated and of course you have to apply todays logic to it.

Then it's not really originalism anymore.

If you could provide the logic of the day, I would consider it. Can you?

 

[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

Now he won't admit he is a Brit but strangely won't deny it at all. I caught him red handed. Interfering in our election. Explains why he would never answer me when I asked him what state he was from. I just believe we need to be honest here, once you're dishonest your posts become irrelevant.

I put him on ignore long ago...

I knew there was some reason

Your intuition served you well. I as a matter of policy don't ever put people on ignore.

I can only ridicule so many at a given time

 

[colfax_m]

If I state in my original document 300 yrs ago that people should go to the theater for one hour a day and in today's world, they watch Netflix for that same hour, I would consider that part of the original plan. It is done for entertainment and because we have advanced we don't need to be super literal. I hope this explanation suffices. How is London?

I wouldn't. This introduces unoriginal intent, it introduces the opinion of modern day individuals into the "originalism". Who is to say that the original document would have felt that Netflix was a suitable alternative? That's the opinion of the modern day person, which makes it unoriginal.

And that's just for a simple example. When the 4th amendment made it so people were secure in their houses and papers, did it apply to records maintained by cell phone companies on who you call? Who knows? Any opinion on whether it does or doesn't apply is certainly not original intent.

 

[colfax_m]

If you could provide the logic of the day, I would consider it. Can you?

We have a hard enough time discerning the intent of something let along the logic.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Coleytroll is a brit living in the US,
Or an actual brit?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If I state in my original document 300 yrs ago that people should go to the theater for one hour a day and in today's world, they watch Netflix for that same hour, I would consider that part of the original plan. It is done for entertainment and because we have advanced we don't need to be super literal. I hope this explanation suffices. How is London?

I wouldn't. This introduces unoriginal intent, it introduces the opinion of modern day individuals into the "originalism". Who is to say that the original document would have felt that Netflix was a suitable alternative? That's the opinion of the modern day person, which makes it unoriginal.

And that's just for a simple example. When the 4th amendment made it so people were secure in their houses and papers, did it apply to records maintained by cell phone companies on who you call? Who knows? Any opinion on whether it does or doesn't apply is certainly not original intent.

Hence we place the nine most talented people in terms of law interpretation to decide this. Of course it is an art and not a science. How do you not know this? If law was a science we would not need judges and juries.

 

[colfax_m]

Hence we place the nine most talented people in terms of law interpretation to decide this. Of course it is an art and not a science. How do you not know this? If law was a science we would not need judges and juries.

I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately that means originalism is a fantasy.

 

[Billiejeens]

Hence we place the nine most talented people in terms of law interpretation to decide this. Of course it is an art and not a science. How do you not know this? If law was a science we would not need judges and juries.

I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately that means originalism is a fantasy.

It doesn't

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Hence we place the nine most talented people in terms of law interpretation to decide this. Of course it is an art and not a science. How do you not know this? If law was a science we would not need judges and juries.

I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately that means originalism is a fantasy.

No. Not remotely. It is a baseline. A fantasy is something that isn't real. Go back to my theater/Netflix example. We have a baseline and now we take the best of best in legal matters and have them interpret it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you could provide the logic of the day, I would consider it. Can you?

We have a hard enough time discerning the intent of something let along the logic.

So, what do we do?

We still have the amendment process. If it is fucked up, amend. Pretty simple.

 

[colfax_m]

No. Not remotely. It is a baseline. A fantasy is something that isn't real. Go back to my theater/Netflix example. We have a baseline and now we take the best of best in legal matters and have them interpret it.

Your language is vague, but betrays the problem. It's a baseline, or a starting point. I agree with that. Once you leave that starting point, you're no longer being originalist.