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.
The problem with this idea is that there are as many original intents as there are drafters, signers, and ratifiers.
I think you're getting it now.
OI is NOT some sort of monolithic constant.
Bob's OI was to get X included with the expectation that his successor would see it expanded.
Joe's OI (as he pinched his nose closed at the the utter repugnance of the idea) was to accept that
accepting X was required to get the far more critical Y and Z and with the expectation that his successor
would see to X being trimmed back or eliminated altogether later on.
There's a word for all of this... It's called politics.
I have read through most of this discussion. I do have a couple of things to say.
First: The Fourteenth Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments passed in the aftermath of the Civil War. It applies all of the Bill of Rights to the states, and for that matter to counties and municipalities. It came into being through the actions of a group of self-identified "Radical Republicans" (their term, not mine).
One clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process clause, has already been discussed. However, Equal Protectionclause is just as important and far-reaching, but as far as I can tell it has not yet come to light in this thread.
The Equal Protection clause guarantees "equal protection under the law" to all who live in the United States. It has been the basis for a very large number of landmark anti-discrimination decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, and is still getting a lot of work.
Taken together, these two clauses swing an awful lot of constitutional weight. Anyone who would attempt to understand the full implications of the Bill of Rights must also work to understand them.
Second: It seems we have overlooked something. The Constitution spells out in exacting detail who has the ultimate authority, and the ultimate responsibility, for interpreting the Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States. If anyone wants to know how some part of the Constitution has been interpreted, read up on how the SCOTUS has interpreted it. Their decisions become the law of the land.
There's more, but I'll save that for later if needed.
The Constitution spells out on how the government is to function, these are not gray areas, they are pretty specific.
The Bill of Rights, if you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights it gives the meaning behind these rights
Congress of the United State begun and held at the City of New York the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
So judges are making unconstitutional rulings? The things you learn on these boards!
If by "judges are making unconstitutional rulings" you are referring to decisions/rulings made by the United States Supreme Court -- oh bruddah! -- you REALLY need some schooling in Constitutional Law.
I have read through most of this discussion. I do have a couple of things to say.
The Equal Protection clause (has been interpreted to) guarantee "equal protection under the law" to all who live in the United States. It has been the basis for a very large number of landmark anti-discrimination decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, and is still getting a lot of work.
Taken together, (the interpretations associated with) these two clauses swing an awful lot of constitutional weight. Anyone who would attempt to understand the full implications of the (current operating interpretation of the) Bill of Rights must also work to understand them.
Second: It seems we have overlooked something. The Constitution spells out in exacting detail who has the ultimate authority, and the ultimate responsibility, for interpreting the Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States. If anyone wants to know how some part of the Constitution has been interpreted, read up on how the SCOTUS has interpreted it. Their decisions become the law of the land.
a bit of clarifying editing adding the pharsing that too often is just assumed to be understood.
No one seriously holds that the Founders were speaking of the forelimbs of ursine mammals.
2. However, what does 'bear' mean? Not the animal, but to wield? That's a thornier question - and since most of those in Congress who voted to send the Bill of Rights to the States, not to mention most state legislators who voted to ratify it, left no trace of what they thought it meant, we're back at the point where we must concede that for most of the creators of the Bill of Rights (and they number in the hundreds) there is no trace of their thoughts on that.
But it gets even better. What are 'arms'? And how can we possibly shoehorn the views of even those few elected officials who voted in favor of the Bill of Rights, and left us a record of their views on that word, into modern arms that they never even imagined would come into being?
The answer, of course, is that we cannot even begin to do so.
It's one thing to conclude that the word 'year', which appears numerous times in the Constitution, means "a period of 365 or 366 days; from one date to the next occurrence of that same date twelve months hence" - it is quite another to attempt definitions of such terms as:
'general welfare'
'necessary and proper'
'from time to time'
'free exercise'
'speedy'
'just compensation'
Frankly, the use of such terms makes it clear that at least some of the most prominent drivers of the Constitution - the ones that actually crafted the text - thought it necessary in many cases to use phrasings so open to interpretation that future generations would have to decide for themselves what those phrases meant, as opposed to trying to decipher some hard and fast definition from the authors themselves.
Further clouding the issue is that in many cases we can find those officials who voted in support of the Constitution or its amendments who are on record holding conflicting views on their intents. Then what?
1. Actually, I think that it does. After all, if this right was hypothetically stated as simply "the right to bear arms" (Note: I am aware that this right is actually stated as more than this) and if original intent is completely irrelevant, then I don't see why anyone should complain if a court hypothetically interprets this right as having the right to own arms of bears.
2. I agree that some things are certainly open to interpretation in terms of their original intent (and that thus our current judges should do this interpreting). However, I do think that things might be more clear-cut in terms of original intent in certain cases--for instance, some people have argued that the 13th Amendment should justify not having the draft, as well as justify having legal abortion nationwide. However, here is the question--are there any writings at all on the Thirteenth Amendment from the 1860s which say that this amendment should be used to justify these things?
Second: It seems we have overlooked something. The Constitution spells out in exacting detail who has the ultimate authority, and the ultimate responsibility, for interpreting the Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States. If anyone wants to know how some part of the Constitution has been interpreted, read up on how the SCOTUS has interpreted it. Their decisions become the law of the land.
I'm obviously not disputing that the U.S. Supreme Court's job is to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Whether I would always agree with their interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, well, that's a separate and a different question.
The US constitution is a pretty nice work of philosophy if you ask me, and it does take argument and debate of all laws to ensure that the laws of the land treat all people equal and afford them opportunity in order to ensure that collectively we succeed using the best ideas of our times. All this based on written history.
Yes....these days too many look at the U.S. Constitution as something to use to line their birdcage. That's how much importance it has to them. Unless the argument has to do with one of their pet issues. Be it 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, 1st amendment or the body of the constitution itself. I personally think that the WHOLE document is important including the amendments and needs to be read and studied by elementary, high school, college and especially law school students. The readers will discover certain phrases like "separation of church and state" do not appear therein.
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.
The things you learn on these boards!
