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

[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".

 

[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.

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

LOL

 

[jc456]

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

 

[meaner gene]

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.

 

[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.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

 

[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.

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.

Why is that? The amendment process is correct?

 

[basquebromance]

Britney Spears is more qualified than Any Comey Barrett!

 

[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?

 

[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.

.

 

[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.

Why is that? The amendment process is correct?

Amendments that keep adding to/changing the 'original' Constitution. So in retrospect, other people support an already 'living' Constitution.

 

[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.

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.

Why is that? The amendment process is correct?

Amendments that keep adding to/changing the 'original' Constitution. So in retrospect, other people support an already 'living' Constitution.

Do 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?

.

 

[meaner gene]

Also the 14th Amendment provides for reducing the count for apportionment by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors for president, that would include all non-citizens and criminals that are prohibited from voting. The text of the 14th has been posted in this thread a couple of times.

Try reading it again. Criminals are rightfully excluded from voting but are still counted.


Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

If the reduction was purely of those deprived voting rights, they would not have used such a specific proportion formula, and instead just reduced it by those not allowed to vote. Clearly proving "the people" are a superset of citizens.

 

[meaner gene]

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

The same place that allowed them to kill indians.

 

[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.

Why is that? The amendment process is correct?

Amendments that keep adding to/changing the 'original' Constitution. So in retrospect, other people support an already 'living' Constitution.

Do it.

Wonder if originalists know that a kid born here to illegals is elgible to become president after he turns 35? That should frost them.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

 

[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?

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

Who assigns the phone number? The phone company.

 

[Ben Thomson]

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]

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.

Only until someone suffers a measurable harm, thereby giving him standing to challenge the action. The problem is that moving money from general categories of spending doesn't lead to the specific harm needed to give somebody "standing" to challenge it.

"Standing" is what's needed for a court to consider a law or action. Something can be clearly unconstitutional, but until someone with "standing" can challenge it, a case can't be brought on principles.