Originalism (aka textualism) is a facade that is applied to justify decisions that favor the beliefs of the court's 6 right-wing, "christian" ideologues. It is true that abortion, for example, is never mentioned in the Constitution. So the originalists can bandy that about when they seek to control women's bodies. But it is also true tha…
Originalism (aka textualism) is a facade that is applied to justify decisions that favor the beliefs of the court's 6 right-wing, "christian" ideologues. It is true that abortion, for example, is never mentioned in the Constitution. So the originalists can bandy that about when they seek to control women's bodies. But it is also true that nowhere in the Constitution are corporations given the rights of citizens. Therefore, the cases of Hobby Lobby, where corporations were declared to have religious rights, or Citizens United, where corporations were granted free speech, are bogus by the originalists' own standards. Originalism sounds lofty, but it's just a convenient excuse for denying some rights, and tossed aside when right-wing Republican justices want to rule in favor of their corporate sponsors.
“Originalism” reminds me of what people sang at the Scopes “Monkey Trial’ in Dayton, TN. “Give me that old time religion…it’s good enough for me.” As described in Catherine Drinker Bowen’s magisterial MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA, with the American confederation at risk of dissolving, 55 men desperately sought to create an acceptable, functional constitution.
At times the proceedings seemed like an Irish bar brawl, with small states fighting large states, slave states seeking to preserve their slave system, and states’ righters resisting federalists. The Constitution evolved after several make-or-break compromises. The result was the most extraordinary governing document in history.
Over more than 250 years the Constitution has served a rapidly changing and expanding America uncommonly well. As a ‘living’ document, the Constitution has been interpreted and amended to accommodate situations unimagined in 1787 by the Founding Fathers.
Well into the 16th century some prominent persons who declared that the Bible was not the literal word of God were burned. German scholars in the 19th century were the first to analyze the Bible as writings by diverse human beings in distinct time periods. Today analyzing and interpreting both the Old and the New Testament is considered essential ongoing scholarship.
Those ‘originalists’ who insist on divining the original intent of the Founding Fathers are both wrong headed and procedurally in a dead end. Would they wish to open up the rat’s nest of the Constitutional Convention’s debate or the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay?
In my view, and that of the great preponderance of constitutional scholars, the Constitution is a living document whose core principles have been applied to initially unimagined issues and situations over more than 250 years. Originalists might hum “Give me that old-time Constitution,” but, as Darwin proved, evolution is the immutable way of life.
And all done without digital devices, copy machines, internet, interstates, or cheap long distance, indeed without telephones. Amazing minds, and hard working people.
Don't those originalists realize that since the creation of our original Constitution, there was a need over the following years to add Amendments to it? The divining rods of folks in future generations have found it necessary through discoveries found in those fresh waters that adjustments were necessary.
Richard How bold of you to use facts and common sense to repute the ridiculous originalist protestations. If more people relied on facts rather that ‘false facts,’ what might happen to our country? Might things have changed a little in over 250 years?
Absolutely! I just don’t understand how they get away with it ? There should be some way to challenge them in these blatant cases, but apparently we’re stuck!
The Court isn't above reproach. here is plenty of "reproach" but the difficulty is that a strong majority of the Court is not and will not be influenced by such reproach.
Originalism (aka textualism) is a facade that is applied to justify decisions that favor the beliefs of the court's 6 right-wing, "christian" ideologues. It is true that abortion, for example, is never mentioned in the Constitution. So the originalists can bandy that about when they seek to control women's bodies. But it is also true that nowhere in the Constitution are corporations given the rights of citizens. Therefore, the cases of Hobby Lobby, where corporations were declared to have religious rights, or Citizens United, where corporations were granted free speech, are bogus by the originalists' own standards. Originalism sounds lofty, but it's just a convenient excuse for denying some rights, and tossed aside when right-wing Republican justices want to rule in favor of their corporate sponsors.
“Originalism” reminds me of what people sang at the Scopes “Monkey Trial’ in Dayton, TN. “Give me that old time religion…it’s good enough for me.” As described in Catherine Drinker Bowen’s magisterial MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA, with the American confederation at risk of dissolving, 55 men desperately sought to create an acceptable, functional constitution.
At times the proceedings seemed like an Irish bar brawl, with small states fighting large states, slave states seeking to preserve their slave system, and states’ righters resisting federalists. The Constitution evolved after several make-or-break compromises. The result was the most extraordinary governing document in history.
Over more than 250 years the Constitution has served a rapidly changing and expanding America uncommonly well. As a ‘living’ document, the Constitution has been interpreted and amended to accommodate situations unimagined in 1787 by the Founding Fathers.
Well into the 16th century some prominent persons who declared that the Bible was not the literal word of God were burned. German scholars in the 19th century were the first to analyze the Bible as writings by diverse human beings in distinct time periods. Today analyzing and interpreting both the Old and the New Testament is considered essential ongoing scholarship.
Those ‘originalists’ who insist on divining the original intent of the Founding Fathers are both wrong headed and procedurally in a dead end. Would they wish to open up the rat’s nest of the Constitutional Convention’s debate or the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay?
In my view, and that of the great preponderance of constitutional scholars, the Constitution is a living document whose core principles have been applied to initially unimagined issues and situations over more than 250 years. Originalists might hum “Give me that old-time Constitution,” but, as Darwin proved, evolution is the immutable way of life.
And all done without digital devices, copy machines, internet, interstates, or cheap long distance, indeed without telephones. Amazing minds, and hard working people.
Don't those originalists realize that since the creation of our original Constitution, there was a need over the following years to add Amendments to it? The divining rods of folks in future generations have found it necessary through discoveries found in those fresh waters that adjustments were necessary.
Richard How bold of you to use facts and common sense to repute the ridiculous originalist protestations. If more people relied on facts rather that ‘false facts,’ what might happen to our country? Might things have changed a little in over 250 years?
Absolutely! I just don’t understand how they get away with it ? There should be some way to challenge them in these blatant cases, but apparently we’re stuck!
Why the Court is above reproach?!
The Court isn't above reproach. here is plenty of "reproach" but the difficulty is that a strong majority of the Court is not and will not be influenced by such reproach.