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

[Billiejeens]

The original intent was to count everyone here legally.

That’s not original intent. You’re applying a concept to their intent that they didn’t even have. It’s literally impossible to say this was their intent.

You can believe that, but you are no longer an originalist.

I am
I dismiss you.

 

[colfax_m]

The entire context revolves around citizenship. Sorry son.

Clearly the authors had no problem differentiating by citizens and persons. If they meant to apportion by citizens they would have said citizens, but they didn’t.

The context you provides confirms my position.

 

[colfax_m]

The original intent was to count everyone here legally.

That’s not original intent. You’re applying a concept to their intent that they didn’t even have. It’s literally impossible to say this was their intent.

You can believe that, but you are no longer an originalist.

I am
I dismiss you.

Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Boarders didn't exist?

Of course they did. What does borders have to do with whether you consider someone an illegal immigrant?

No wonder your country is so F'd up.

 

[colfax_m]

No wonder your country is so F'd up.

I think it’s a pretty great place.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The theory and use of the term “Originalism” in the context of judicial interpretation is only about 40 years old. It has become a catchphrase for Republican Conservatives who oppose “liberal activist judges,” but by no means must be, or even likely will in the future, always be seen in that light.

There is no guarantee that Conservative judges will be less activist than Liberal judges, more or less obstructionist of the laws of Congress and the rights of the People. Nor is it at all clear that this has been so historically. The greatest and worst activist re-interpretations / misinterpretations of the Constitution arguably were made by extremely Conservative judges, as for example in Dred Scott or in the decisions rejecting the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment after Reconstruction ended and Jim Crow was emerging.

Judicial interpretation and rulings don’t apply only to the Constitution, but to laws, to executive powers, even to tradition and legal precedent. Corporations are not even mentioned in the Constitution, yet the rights of corporations have been extended continuously — especially by Conservative Republicans in recent years.

“Strict constructionism,” “originalism,” “textualism,” various theories of establishing the original meaning or intention of law givers or legislators, of common or literal understanding of the law (in different periods too!) — these are theories and tools of the profession, and many Liberal judges accept and use them too.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

Do you think they didn't have pandemics in the 18th century? They were worse then than now. At that time the government had no more power than it ever had. Especially the government of a free people. There was no By Order of the King.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.

The Leftist hate our constitution because it was designed to protect the citizens, not the government

 

[Billiejeens]

The original intent was to count everyone here legally.

That’s not original intent. You’re applying a concept to their intent that they didn’t even have. It’s literally impossible to say this was their intent.

You can believe that, but you are no longer an originalist.

I am
I dismiss you.

Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out.

You might not know what dismissed means.

 

[busybee01]

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.

The idea that the founding fathers could have anticipated every issue that arises is lunacy. If they had known the facts then they might have changed their opinions. The Texas judge who invalidated Obamacare was not following the Constitution.

 

[busybee01]

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?

The founding fathers could never have anticipated silencers and large gun magazines. The idea the second amendment covers this is absurd.

 

[OKTexas]

Who decides what it originally meant?

They had dictionaries when the Constitution was written. If you have a doubt what a word means, look it up. There are also writings by the founders explaining what it meant to the people.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

It's covered, see the 10th Amendment.

.

 

[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.

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.

Some States require registration, most don't. At this time federal law prohibits a federal registry.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yes, it does apply to your phone records. That's why the government has to get a warrant to access them.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why are you interpreting the law to solve problems? Activism? The court is not a super legislature. As has been mentioned several times, an amendment process exists, and has been used. I would argue that 90% of the Constitution is quite clear and applicable. There is no need to stretch its meaning.

Interpreting the law to solve problems is exactly what the courts were intended to do. SCOTUS settles disputes that are inevitable in law. The problem I has is that the circumstances we find ourselves in (or at least the matters that the SCOTUS has to deal with) are so far removed from the original document.

Just got an alert on my phone about the census case going to SCOTUS. Trump wants the Census to apportion seats by legal residents and exclude illegal immigrants. Okay. What does the original document have to say about that? Nothing. Know why? Because there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1787. The entire concept of an illegal immigrant didn't occur until about a century later. Original intent cannot be used to determine the outcome of this case.

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

.

 

[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?

The founding fathers could never have anticipated silencers and large gun magazines. The idea the second amendment covers this is absurd.

Back in the day citizens could own a cannon.

Try again

 

[OKTexas]

It still seems odd to look at the law for effect. Doesn't that seem to be looking for an outcome outside of what is actually written? The cases before the court are interpreting the constitutionality of a case, and not how to solve a problem. This all goes back to using amendments to solve conditions that exist in current times.

I get what you're saying, but why shouldn't the court consider the repercussions of their actions? If a decision follows some strict legal code but results in adverse consequence for the nation, is that a better outcome? For instance, the Dredd Scott decision rested on originalism but from our perspective, was a complete violation of fundamental human rights.

Repercussions are the responsibility of the people who write the laws. Like Barrett said, if you don't want repercussions, write better laws.

.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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?

The founding fathers could never have anticipated silencers and large gun magazines. The idea the second amendment covers this is absurd.

No it covers gun rights to private ownership, has nothing to do with parts of a firearm.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

The founding fathers could never have anticipated silencers and large gun magazines. The idea the second amendment covers this is absurd.

Back in the day citizens could own a cannon.

Try again

They could also own war ships, if you could afford them of course.

.