Crash Course on the Constitution and Originalism

When the media talks about a liberal or conservative Justices, what do they mean?

What does it mean to be an Originalist?

Has the Court moved to far "to the Right?"

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Constitution
• Supreme
• Court
• Justice
• Souter
• Scalia
• Originalism
• HowTheWorldWorks
• How
• The
• World
• Works
• commentary
• analysis
• news

[mainestategop]

Thats right, the constitution is an obstruction to Marxism

[Philsonpott]

On a humorous note, I read a recent analysis that said if the writers of the constitution had included a "Right to Privacy," it would have meant a right to use the bathroom (in the 1780s at least).

[USAHistory1]

"Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds.."_______________ Former Dean of the Harvard Law School 1946-1967, Erwin Griswold, Washington Post, November 4, 1990_____________________

200+ years & Scalia and crew overturned 2 laws. LOL

An "originalist" is just a judge whose opinion you agree with.

[Luigi84289]

@gustjorodedheo I agree with that. I think bringing race into it at all is a misunderstanding of the term.

[Luigi84289]

@gustjorodedheo The police used to be more personal. They used to be keepers of the peace. Think Mayberry. Andy Griffith is what law enforcement is supposed to be like. It's supposed to work with the people and be locally based. Cops are supposed to be your agent not superior.

[Luigi84289]

@gustjorodedheo In 1868 the Radical Republicans (nationalists) began Reconstructing America from a Constitutional Republic into a Democracy (absolute Majority rule). They created a new class which they wanted to sweep the land. If we really were free unless we injured or stole from another party or interfered with the mail we would never even see the Government. Why do the police ticket us and fine us? Because we are not free. They have convinced us to give them money under threat for nothing .

[Luigi84289]

@gustjorodedheo No you cannot look at it that way. Originalists wouldn't either. 2 classes of people are defined, two types of citizens. In 1868 Citizen would have mainly been referring to black people who were not state citizens of any state correct, but in this day and age it applies to almost everyone. The local state citizen has been lost to time. There really is no such thing as a US citizen. Slaves were never freed and slavery expanded. Citizen = Corporate slave. Feds are a Corporation.

[Luigi84289]

The problem is that people are fickle. Getting a majority at one instant in time should not even be a possible way of getting a law passed. Article V makes it clear that if you do not have a convention like in 1776 then it takes a great period of time. To make sure as much as humanly possible that this amendment, this empowerment is what the people want. Not even the Congress can technically amend it. The people have to via their states.

[gustjorodedheo]

Good insight! People who think a law means what the framers meant, are adding to a law. What the framers meant is irrelevant to the law, it is what the words mean that are important. The U.S. 14th Amendment opens with "All persons..." and goes on to talk about equal protection of laws. Essentialist Originalists (what the framers meant is important) would say that it only applies to black men, as that was the "issue" for which it was passed. And yet, it reads "all persons" not "All black males".

[gustjorodedheo]

@breedofthe45 The Constitution makes no reference to any god or creator. You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence. Understandable, as the two are often confused. It is quite easy to find free pdfs of both documents online. Just inquire to Lord Google. Best of luck.