Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agree 100%. There's no way to divine what the 'intent' of the Founders was.
Of course there is a way!
They left us written records of their deliberations, letters explaining their stances, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.
There is a wealth of records anyone can review to determine/understand the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Moreover, there is the history of the Enlightenment and of the evolution of English Law and notions of rights and duties. There is also the history of the colonies and their governments and jurisprudence. All of this informed the thinking of our Founding Fathers.
This idea that we cannot know what the Founders believed is without merit. OK, sure, if we do this:
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,557 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A
Evidence?
the evidence is the federalist papers, where the father of the Constitution,4th President, and first chief justice all wrote clear explanations of what they meant in the constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A
Can you give an example?
the Federalist papers are that example.
Not only did they define what the militia is (something Republicans claimed meant the army, they were wrong), but how big it should be in comparison to the US army. How its officers should be picked and even how it would store and protect weapons.
the evidence is the federalist papers, where the father of the Constitution,4th President, and first chief justice all wrote clear explanations of what they meant in the constitution.
the Federalist papers are that example.
Not only did they define what the militia is (something Republicans claimed meant the army, they were wrong), but how big it should be in comparison to the US army. How its officers should be picked and even how it would store and protect weapons.
Diane Feinstein finds the "originalist judicial philosophy" troubling. The idea "that judges should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789" disturbs her, because she feels it "ignores the intent of the framers that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build" and "severely limits the genius" of what our Constitution upholds."
This is liberal gobbledygook. She believes, as do all progressives, in the "living document" lie, a term coined by Woodrow Wilson, with absolutely no basis in historical evidence. The founders wrote a document that was intended to be interpreted as written, which is why it has survived for nearly 230 years.
Her view of the Constitution would allow the Second Amendment to be applied only to "non-military use" weapons (an idea that has actually been put forth in one Northeastern State), or repealed altogether. It is a dangerous view that could result even in the repeal of the First Amendment, which isn't too far fetched, considering many college campuses are already restricting the free speech of students.
This idea must be rejected out of hand, and the Constitution defended, as written, and interpreted as written.
The problem with originalism is that there is originalism and then there is ORIGINALISM.
Because the Constitution is vague at times, must we go back even further to the INTENT of the signers of the constitution? And if that doesn't satisfy one's ideology, do we go back to English Common Law?
If it was intended never to be changed, why was it written in a way that allows it to be amended?
Understanding the constitution as written does not require that it be free of change. It simply means that if changes are to be made, we do so via the system outlined within the constitution.
Diane Feinstein finds the "originalist judicial philosophy" troubling. The idea "that judges should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789" disturbs her, because she feels it "ignores the intent of the framers that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build" and "severely limits the genius" of what our Constitution upholds."
This is liberal gobbledygook. She believes, as do all progressives, in the "living document" lie, a term coined by Woodrow Wilson, with absolutely no basis in historical evidence. The founders wrote a document that was intended to be interpreted as written, which is why it has survived for nearly 230 years.
Her view of the Constitution would allow the Second Amendment to be applied only to "non-military use" weapons (an idea that has actually been put forth in one Northeastern State), or repealed altogether. It is a dangerous view that could result even in the repeal of the First Amendment, which isn't too far fetched, considering many college campuses are already restricting the free speech of students.
This idea must be rejected out of hand, and the Constitution defended, as written, and interpreted as written.
Then by all means arm yourself with the guns of the day. Muskets. I'm all for that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
