Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    For the most part but an originalist interpretation can't cover every question. The marriage question that was brought up is a perfect example. The Constitution doesn't define marriage so the marriage position must be interpreted based on what is there. It would be left to the states if the tenth had any effect but the Federal government chose to define interpersonal relationships and once it does that then any definition must be subject to other parts of the Constitution; the 14th as example.
    For clarification: is it your position that the Christian Church's own position on marriage has little to no bearing on marriage itself ? It has no part to play in determining the proper nature of marriage ?
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    if some form of "originalism" is not the standard then ANY brand of interpretation is as valid as any other.

    In my thinking... which may be too simple for some... it's a lot like your parents house rules and commands.
    When the Mom tells kids to, "go to bed", there's an implied ORIGINAL intent, and customary interpretation based on prior use, as well as meaning of the words themselves. But the kids could claim various meanings to the phrases all night long and the stronger or more convincing ones could determine that whatever Mom meant waaaay back then, may have been one thing but "tonight" it clearly really means that they all should "VISIT the bed" then they can do as they pleased. Or it means that they should just verbally acknowledge the bed as a place of rest. Or they could determine that Bed is just an outdated notion. Or they could realize that GO TO really doesn't apply anymore at all because of vital NEW factors unknown to mom... like TV and video games.

    Whatever they do, "go to bed", means whatever they WANT IT to mean. The natural use of words, language and normal communication have NO real power at all. The words are just place holders for them to "interpret" whatever they like, not a real law or contract.
    Last edited by revelarts; 02-19-2016 at 08:59 AM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  3. Thanks Perianne, indago thanked this post
  4. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,343
    Thanks (Given)
    243
    Thanks (Received)
    1256
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1282389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    if some form of "originalism" is not the standard then ANY brand of interpretation is as valid as any other.

    In my thinking... which may be too simple for some... it's a lot like your parents house rules and commands.
    When the Mom tells kids to, "go to bed", there's an implied ORIGINAL intent, and customary interpretation based on prior use, as well as meaning of the words themselves. But the kids could claim various meanings to the phrases all night long and the stronger or more convincing ones could determine that whatever Mom meant waaaay back then, may have been one thing but "tonight" it clearly really means that they all should "VISIT the bed" then they can do as they pleased. Or it means that they should just verbally acknowledge the bed as a place of rest. Or they could determine that Bed is just an outdated notion. Or they could realize that GO TO really doesn't apply anymore at all because of vital NEW factors unknown to mom... like TV and video games.

    Whatever they do, "go to bed", means whatever they WANT IT to mean. The natural use of words, language and normal communication have NO real power at all. The words are just place holders for them to "interpret" whatever they like, not a real law or contract.
    "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean — no more and no less." — Humpty Dumpty

  5. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,893
    Thanks (Given)
    4180
    Thanks (Received)
    4524
    Likes (Given)
    1412
    Likes (Received)
    1065
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    For clarification: is it your position that the Christian Church's own position on marriage has little to no bearing on marriage itself ? It has no part to play in determining the proper nature of marriage ?
    The subject is Constitutional Originalism. The question as it pertains to this thread IMO is unions between two people, aka marriage, as defined by the State and how the Constitution affects that.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  6. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    Constitutional originalism is a principle of interpretation that views the Constitution's meaning as fixed as of the time of enactment.

    Do you agree or disagree that originalism is the correct way to interpret the U.S. Constitution?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
    Of course.

    If we don't keep the meaning the same as what it was when written, we lose the advantages of a written Constitution.

    Why bother writing it down in the first place if we're just going to assume it doesn't mean what the writers wanted it to mean?
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  7. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,811
    Thanks (Given)
    34243
    Thanks (Received)
    26347
    Likes (Given)
    2312
    Likes (Received)
    9910
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    He's not an originalist and he is making claims about those that are that aren't fully true. All modern law contains common law.
    One could argue the reality of common law vs the ideal. The reality is, common law applies less and less in this nation as we cater to the tyranny of the minority based on juris prudence -- a judge legislating from the bench. Common law goes out the window where the tyranny of the minority begins. We do NOT have equal rights.

    Common law reflects the will of the majority. Case law caters to the minority, based on political agenda rather than right and wrong.

    I'm afraid it's too late to turn it back. The weak misuse words to disenfranchise the people who created the law, and were willing to use common sense when enforcing it.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums