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.
It's impossible to be an originalist and an activist. Those are opposite and contradictory.
Both originalists and activists seek to read into the Constitution something that isn't there. Originalists state what they think the Founders meant, while activists state what they think it should say. The former try to divine what was going on in the minds of someone 230 years ago, while the latter redefine the law based on current culture. Both are equally speculative.
To the originalist, I would say - I don't really care what the founders intended, what matters is what the words say. To the activist, I say - if you want the Constitution to mean something other than what it says, you need to do an amendment.
This approach is called textualism, and to me is the only objective way to interpret the Constitution. Kavanough is said to be a textualist, but some of his opinions make me wonder about that.
Voter ID narrowed the swing vote voter pool to white, suburban voters with overwhelming automobile ownership along with allowing Concealed Carry license here in Texas. SOL if you're black and use the bus only, even though the transit authority is a government agency too.
Diebold's machines are popular in Texas. The election official in the neighboring larger county is a partisan position who primarily deals with tax collection. Why is the rooster watching the hen house?
But we have a bunch of activist GOP Supreme Court justices that just ruled that Voter ID is OK and that the Texas redistricting map does not need to be redrawn at all. Not because it's constitutional but because it's political payback for their party that got a lifetime appointment.
Yet the same process was used when Obama was elected?
Voter ID narrowed the swing vote voter pool to white, suburban voters with overwhelming automobile ownership along with allowing Concealed Carry license here in Texas. SOL if you're black and use the bus only, even though the transit authority is a government agency too.
Any random tourist can get a bus pass from a vending machine in 5 minutes. A concealed carry license is a proper document that requires identification to obtain. You're an idiot if you can't see why one is a valid ID and not the other.
Both originalists and activists seek to read into the Constitution something that isn't there. Originalists state what they think the Founders meant, while activists state what they think it should say. The former try to divine what was going on in the minds of someone 230 years ago, while the latter redefine the law based on current culture. Both are equally speculative.
To the originalist, I would say - I don't really care what the founders intended, what matters is what the words say. To the activist, I say - if you want the Constitution to mean something other than what it says, you need to do an amendment.
This approach is called textualism, and to me is the only objective way to interpret the Constitution. Kavanough is said to be a textualist, but some of his opinions make me wonder about that.
Originalists can cite writings by the same men who framed the Constitution whereas activists have no check on their power except their imagination.
Both originalists and activists seek to read into the Constitution something that isn't there. Originalists state what they think the Founders meant, while activists state what they think it should say. The former try to divine what was going on in the minds of someone 230 years ago, while the latter redefine the law based on current culture. Both are equally speculative.
To the originalist, I would say - I don't really care what the founders intended, what matters is what the words say. To the activist, I say - if you want the Constitution to mean something other than what it says, you need to do an amendment.
This approach is called textualism, and to me is the only objective way to interpret the Constitution. Kavanough is said to be a textualist, but some of his opinions make me wonder about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rupp-certified
Originalists can cite writings by the same men who framed the Constitution whereas activists have no check on their power except their imagination.
rupp is right. when the founding fathers wrote that they didnt want the government restricting the right so the people, it is easy enough to tell what they meant since it is in their own writings.
The Constitution was one of the greatest sellings-out in human history.
It took the Articles of Confederation, which was based on natural law and individual sovereignty, and trashed it in exchange for the consolidation of power in a centralized-State--known as the Constitution.
The Constitution was one of the greatest sellings-out in human history.
It took the Articles of Confederation, which was based on natural law and individual sovereignty, and trashed it in exchange for the consolidation of power in a centralized-State--known as the Constitution.
wrong, the constitution, and the bill of rights, was designed to have a weak federal government with particular powers and responsibilities, and gave the rest to the people and the states. try reading the constitution again, specifically the tenth amendment.
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.
