Members banned from this thread: Humorme


Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 134
Thanks Tree54Thanks

Thread: Constitutional originalism

  1. #1
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    7,273
    Thanks
    4416

    From
    Canada, West Coast

    Constitutional originalism

    One member of our morning coffee klatch is a fairly hard line right winger, and very much an originalist. He appears to be quite the scholar and has the most annoying tendency to tell us exactly what the FFs meant in various parts of the constitution. And that is cast in stone.

    But then, when discussing the 2nd amendment, he instantly becomes a literalist.

    And I've seen this schizophrenia in several righties.

    Discuss.

  2. #2
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,644
    Thanks
    300

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    What do you mean, he becomes a literalist?

  3. #3
    Moderator libertariat720's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,040
    Thanks
    2182

    From
    ohio
    Aren't they the same thing?

  4. #4
    The Covfefe are Coming! BitterPill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    6,815
    Thanks
    4504

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    One member of our morning coffee klatch is a fairly hard line right winger, and very much an originalist. He appears to be quite the scholar and has the most annoying tendency to tell us exactly what the FFs meant in various parts of the constitution. And that is cast in stone.

    But then, when discussing the 2nd amendment, he instantly becomes a literalist.

    And I've seen this schizophrenia in several righties.

    Discuss.
    Sounds like a case of Scaliosis.
    Thanks from Friday13, Ian Jeffrey and leekohler2

  5. #5
    You just made the list! Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    80,242
    Thanks
    20730

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    It's a legal document. The only way to read it is literally.
    Thanks from TNVolunteer73

  6. #6
    Moderator libertariat720's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,040
    Thanks
    2182

    From
    ohio
    Read the federalist papers. It's all spelled out in there.

    Avalon Project - The Federalist Papers

  7. #7
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    7,273
    Thanks
    4416

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    I have heard it argued that the intent of the FFs was to make sure they had the makings of a militia if needed as they feared a standing army, thus the prevention of the populous being unable to have weapons.

    Since the world has morphed and there is a standing army, a militia isn't needed thus the intent is no longer valid.

    As opposed to my righty acquaintance who says the intent of the first amendment was only to protect white protestants and the protestant christian religion. And he will quote tons of letters from FFs and such to justify his claim that that was the intent so that's how it should be. Just as one example.

  8. #8
    Proud deplorable Bigot Outdraw Poker Champion, Colinks :Swap Champion
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    14,225
    Thanks
    3072

    From
    MI
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    It's a legal document. The only way to read it is literally.
    So free speech just means nobody can charge you to talk? The right to bear arms doesn't say how many arms or what kind of arms, etc.....I don't think it can really be taken literally.

  9. #9
    Moderator libertariat720's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,040
    Thanks
    2182

    From
    ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    I have heard it argued that the intent of the FFs was to make sure they had the makings of a militia if needed as they feared a standing army, thus the prevention of the populous being unable to have weapons.

    Since the world has morphed and there is a standing army, a militia isn't needed thus the intent is no longer valid.


    As opposed to my righty acquaintance who says the intent of the first amendment was only to protect white protestants and the protestant christian religion. And he will quote tons of letters from FFs and such to justify his claim that that was the intent so that's how it should be. Just as one example.
    None of that really matters since self-defense, the right to defend your body from unwanted harm, is not handed down by the government.

    It's inalienable, a natural right.
    Thanks from Bronwyn

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    9,483
    Thanks
    2500

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    I have heard it argued that the intent of the FFs was to make sure they had the makings of a militia if needed as they feared a standing army, thus the prevention of the populous being unable to have weapons.

    Since the world has morphed and there is a standing army, a militia isn't needed thus the intent is no longer valid.

    As opposed to my righty acquaintance who says the intent of the first amendment was only to protect white protestants and the protestant christian religion. And he will quote tons of letters from FFs and such to justify his claim that that was the intent so that's how it should be. Just as one example.
    Mr. RNG,

    Please go back and read the Constitution and get back to me where it says "Because we fear a standing army, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I'll wait.

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. It's A Constitutional Obligation
    By Howey in forum Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 17th February 2016, 02:29 PM
  2. Constitutional right...
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 18th August 2012, 09:29 AM
  3. War in Iraq Constitutional?
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 12th October 2008, 04:07 PM
  4. Constitutional?
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 27th September 2008, 06:58 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed