PDA

View Full Version : George Will Gets It Wrong



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-17-2015, 05:58 PM
https://ricochet.com/george-will-gets-it-wrong/

George Will Gets It Wrong
Augustine
Augustine
July 24, 2015 at 6:20 am

Madison
Madison
George Will writes in “Some GOP Candidates Are Becoming Unhinged”:

In 1824, in retirement 37 years after serving as the Constitutional Convention’s prime mover, James Madison, 73, noted that the 1787 “language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders.” He knew that the purport of the text would evolve “with the changeable meaning of the words composing it.”

Will later notes that “Such evolution [of the meaning of the Constitution] is real and relevant.”

At first glance, this looks like a heavy blow to originalism; like Madison said that the meaning of the Constitution would change without the text changing and that one of the guys who wrote the Constitution openly rejected originalism!

But first glances can be deceiving, and I didn’t leap to any of these conclusions after I read Will’s article. This called for some investigation. I thought I would start by running the Madison quote through Google. After George Will himself, the first thing that comes up is Mark Levin’s book. After I clicked on that, I got to see the Madison quote with a bit more context.

It turns out that — here at least — what you see on a first glance is frightfully wrong.

Here are Madison’s words in all their glory and with some emphasis added (copied from here, where you can see the whole letter from which they come):

With a view to this last object, I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no Security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Not to look further for an example, take the word “consolidate” in the address of the Convention prefixed to the Constitution. It then and there meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the States. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the States, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union.

So Will got it exactly wrong. Madison thought it was a tragedy that the “language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders.” We must adhere to the original meaning and resist the effects of “the changeable meaning of the words composing it.”

Reading the Constitution according to interpretations unknown to its authors is not a way to get at the Constitution’s new meaning. It’s a way to miss the Constitution’s real meaning.

That’s what Madison means: “In that sense alone” – the original sense – “it is the legitimate Constitution.”


It then and there meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the States. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the States, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union.

So Will got it exactly wrong. Madison thought it was a tragedy that the “language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders.” We must adhere to the original meaning and resist the effects of “the changeable meaning of the words composing it.”


EXACTLY what they want and are now deliberately doing!!--Tyr

revelarts
08-17-2015, 08:44 PM
Have been doing for decades...

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-17-2015, 08:50 PM
Have been doing for decades...

At least since Wilson but in high gear since the 60's in my opinion, going into super high gear since the obama!
Trying to cross the finish line before it can be fought and stopped.
And they used a black man(obama) as cover and to ramped it up in speed. -Tyr

revelarts
08-17-2015, 09:17 PM
At least since Wilson but in high gear since the 60's in my opinion, going into super high gear since the obama!
Trying to cross the finish line before it can be fought and stopped.
And they used a black man(obama) as cover and to ramped it up in speed. -Tyr

Yes since wilson it's been moving pretty steady .but you know what i'm going to say.

ford Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, did some real damage but W Bush flipped the nitro switch with the excuse of 9/11 thats just a fact. Obama has just kept the pedal down. Right cover for Bush Left cover for Obama, loose loose for the Constitution.

fj1200
08-18-2015, 10:26 AM
George Will gets it right.


So too, however, is recognition that Chief Justice Warren was not wrong when, in a 1958 case concerning the Eighth Amendment’s proscriptions of “cruel and unusual punishments,” he said: “The amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Such evolution is real and relevant. No one today thinks that branding and ear cropping, which were punishments practiced when the Eighth Amendment was ratified, are today compatible with this amendment.

During April’s oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts said that people seeking same-sex marriage are “not seeking to join the institution” but are “seeking to change what the institution is.” But this institution has been changed by American attitudes and behavior. Marriage in America will be, over time, what Americans say it is, and last week’s decision came with almost three in four Americans already living in states where same-sex marriage is legal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420651/same-sex-marriage-reaction-some-republican-candidates-becoming-unhinged

Motown
09-26-2015, 01:40 PM
Of course Will got it wrong. He pulled a small quote from a much larger body of work in order to present it as meaning something other than what it actually meant when read in proper context. Saying he got it wrong is being a little too nice to Will, where I come from that's called lying.

fj1200
09-26-2015, 02:59 PM
Of course Will got it wrong. He pulled a small quote from a much larger body of work in order to present it as meaning something other than what it actually meant when read in proper context. Saying he got it wrong is being a little too nice to Will, where I come from that's called lying.

That's what the OP did as well. Nevertheless the Constitution didn't change with the recent decision, only a state-adopted definition.

Motown
09-26-2015, 06:30 PM
That's what the OP did as well. Nevertheless the Constitution didn't change with the recent decision, only a state-adopted definition.

If you think the OP misrepresented someone's words then post the evidence.

fj1200
09-28-2015, 08:51 AM
If you think the OP misrepresented someone's words then post the evidence.


... where I come from that's called lying.

I merely said the same thing as you; Will you be posting your evidence? But that's beside the point, I already made my comments to which you are free to respond. :)

Motown
09-28-2015, 08:59 AM
I merely said the same thing as you; Will you be posting your evidence? But that's beside the point, I already made my comments to which you are free to respond. :)

I see no need to post anything about Will's comments and what is wrong with them since the OP already did that by showing the larger body of work the quote was pulled from.

fj1200
09-28-2015, 09:10 AM
I see no need to post anything about Will's comments and what is wrong with them since the OP already did that by showing the larger body of work the quote was pulled from.

And that's exactly what the piece you're defending did. But I already posted from Will's comments as to why he's right and the question of whether he is right or wrong is the point of the thread. :)

Motown
09-28-2015, 09:13 AM
And that's exactly what the piece you're defending did. But I already posted from Will's comments as to why he's right and the question of whether he is right or wrong is the point of the thread. :)

You posted an opinion piece from Buckley's rag, not the same thing as showing Madison's own words.

fj1200
09-28-2015, 09:18 AM
You posted an opinion piece from Buckley's rag, not the same thing as showing Madison's own words.

The National Review is a rag now? Oh geez. Nevertheless I posted why Will was right which is the point of this thread.

Motown
09-28-2015, 09:21 AM
The National Review is a rag now? Oh geez. Nevertheless I posted why Will was right which is the point of this thread.

Yes it is a rag in my opinion and no, you didn't.



So are you just bored or do you like to disagree with the OP?

fj1200
09-28-2015, 09:29 AM
Yes it is a rag in my opinion and no, you didn't.

So are you just bored or do you like to disagree with the OP?

Did you choose not to read post #5? I disagree with poor reasoning skills.






Buckley's "rag." Kathianne is right, the Republicans are doomed to split.

Motown
09-28-2015, 09:37 AM
Did you choose not to read post #5? I disagree with poor reasoning skills.






Buckley's "rag." Kathianne is right, the Republicans are doomed to split.

Yes, I read post 5. My reasoning skills may not be the best in the world, I am getting older after all, but they're good enough for me to know that someone trying to elevate the opinion of a neo-con rag to the level of Madison's own words probably shouldn't be taken too seriously.

fj1200
09-28-2015, 04:09 PM
Yes, I read post 5. My reasoning skills may not be the best in the world, I am getting older after all, but they're good enough for me to know that someone trying to elevate the opinion of a neo-con rag to the level of Madison's own words probably shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Now I've heard everything. Back to the topic?

Motown
09-28-2015, 04:31 PM
Now I've heard everything. Back to the topic?

Yes, you're a neo-con, I get it. That's all you've got. You're one post away from adding one more enemy.

fj1200
09-28-2015, 04:46 PM
Yes, you're a neo-con, I get it. That's all you've got. You're one post away from adding one more enemy.

:laugh:

Is there an actual argument in there someplace?