Progressive Constitutionalist versus Originalist Constitutionalist

[Old Man Jingles]

Why we need article 5 Convention of states.

That would be nice but the Libs are not interested since the Libs gather in high population density states.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I agree and understand.

That said, the Constitution as originally written would make little to no sense in today's world.

Hence, amendments.

And Legislative laws.

 

[oldngray]

I don’t know if it is by design.
Deliberate action was the framers intent.

For the same reason we are a Republic and not a Democracy. To hinder sudden changes based on emotional mood swings. They set up a system to change things but by design its a slow and deliberate process.

 

[cosmo1]

And Legislative laws.

Which are all subject to interpretation.

 

[El Correcto]

That would be nice but the Libs are not interested since the Libs gather in high population density states.

That’s why we need a nuclear civil war, they high density, we spread out. Ggnore

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Which are all subject to interpretation.

And ‘approval’ by the SCOTUS if a case comes up.

 

[Jkloc420]

And ‘approval’ by the SCOTUS if a case comes up.

no one cares

 

[Yaba Daba Do]

I agree and understand.

That said, the Constitution as originally written would make little to no sense in today's world.

Hence, amendments.

Much of the constitution makes perfect sense in today’s world and like you said there are amendments and there is an amendment process if you think something should be changed. The problem with saying that the constitution is constantly evolving is that it gives judges the ability to base their decisions on whatever they think the constitution should have evolved into instead of what was meant by it when it was written. When this happens you then get judges who make ruling based on absolutely nothing in the constitution whatsoever. Take roe v wade for example. This decision is widely regarded as one of the worst judicial decisions in recent history as there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that guarantees anyone’s right to an abortion. If they wanted abortion to be legal they should have gone through the amendment process however they knew they didn’t have the support for that so they let the courts take care of it.

 

[It will be fine]

Much of the constitution makes perfect sense in today’s world and like you said there are amendments and there is an amendment process if you think something should be changed. The problem with saying that the constitution is constantly evolving is that it gives judges the ability to base their decisions on whatever they think the constitution should have evolved into instead of what was meant by it when it was written. When this happens you then get judges who make ruling based on absolutely nothing in the constitution whatsoever. Take roe v wade for example. This decision is widely regarded as one of the worst judicial decisions in recent history as there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that guarantees anyone’s right to an abortion. If they wanted abortion to be legal they should have gone through the amendment process however they knew they didn’t have the support for that so they let the courts take care of it.

We live in a world very different from that of the framers. Judges need to interpret the intent of the constitution to determine how it applies to issues that could not have been envisioned during its writing.

 

[Yaba Daba Do]

We live in a world very different from that of the framers. Judges need to interpret the intent of the constitution to determine how it applies to issues that could not have been envisioned during its writing.

No one is saying no progress. Originalists say we should progress democratically. Take my previous example, you want a right to abortion? No problem, the constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created, pass a law. That is different than a constitutional right to abortion created by a court.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

We live in a world very different from that of the framers. Judges need to interpret the intent of the constitution to determine how it applies to issues that could not have been envisioned during its writing.

Nope!!!!!!!
Not unless there is a strong, direct relationship.
The Constitutional approach is for Congress to pass laws that cover emerging changes and new technologies.
Then the Courts come into play when states or individuals challenge the new law.

 

[It will be fine]

Nope!!!!!!!
Not unless there is a strong, direct relationship.
The Constitutional approach is for Congress to pass laws that cover emerging changes and new technologies.
Then the Courts come into play when states or individuals challenge the new law.

Not sure what you seem so upset about. When the courts come into play what do they do? They interpret the intent of the constitution as it applies to the new laws.

 

[It will be fine]

No one is saying no progress. Originalists say we should progress democratically. Take my previous example, you want a right to abortion? No problem, the constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created, pass a law. That is different than a constitutional right to abortion created by a court.

The constitution makes no reference to abortion. It doesn’t give the government the power to make that decision for women either. It’s up for interpretation, which is what judges do.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Not sure what you seem so upset about. When the courts come into play what do they do? They interpret the intent of the constitution as it applies to the new laws.

Your post seemed to say that courts should rule on issues instead of relying on Congress to pass laws.

So now you are saying the courts should not rule on issues that were not envisioned by the framers until Congress passes a law addresses the issue.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

The constitution makes no reference to abortion. It doesn’t give the government the power to make that decision for women either. It’s up for interpretation, which is what judges do.

That is not interpretation... that is the Court creating a law.

That is the classic ‘legislating from the bench’.

 

[Yaba Daba Do]

The constitution makes no reference to abortion. It doesn’t give the government the power to make that decision for women either. It’s up for interpretation, which is what judges do.

You’re right the constitution says nothing about it, it leaves it up to democratic choice. Some states prohibited it, some states didn’t. What row v wade said was that no state can prohibit it. That is simply not in the constitution, it was one of many things in the world left to democratic choice.

 

[It will be fine]

That is not interpretation... that is the Court creating a law.

That is the classic ‘legislating from the bench’.

It was the court saying laws banning abortion were unconstitutional. They interpreted the constitution and made a ruling. It’s what they do.

 

[El Correcto]

It was the court saying laws banning abortion were unconstitutional. They interpreted the constitution and made a ruling. It’s what they do.

And there is nothing in the constitution banning states from not allowing baby killers to run a mock.

 

[It will be fine]

Your post seemed to say that courts should rule on issues instead of relying on Congress to pass laws.

So now you are saying the courts should not rule on issues that were not envisioned by the framers until Congress passes a law addresses the issue.

Courts don’t issue edicts willy nilly, cases need to be brought before them and then they rule. How else would it work?

 

[It will be fine]

And there is nothing in the constitution banning states from not allowing baby killers to run a mock.

It’s that type of rhetoric that loses the argument for you.