Constitution or Founding Fathers' intent?

[Optatron]

Should we follow the Constitution with all the amendments as it is today?

Or go all the way back to our founders' version?

Or which amendments should get repeal?

Those of you who call yourself CONSTITUTIONALIST, or cry all day about FOUNDING FATHERS' ORIGINAL INTENT, how far back should we go?

 

[idiom]

Getting anything even near the constitution would be a good start.

 

[shocker315]

The Constitution should be interpreted as it was "intended to mean" by the Founders... otherwise it doesn't mean anything at all. If we are just to follow what the leaders of today say it should mean in a "living document"... then why even bother having a Constitution? We can just get rid of it, and simply do what our current leaders tell us to do.

Sadly, over the last 100 years we tended to follow our media promoted leaders interpretations, rather than uphold the original intent of our Founders.

 

[Optatron]

The Constitution should be interpreted as it was "intended to mean" by the Founders... otherwise it doesn't mean anything at all.

yeah, I don't think we should keep amendments 13 and after.

If we are just to follow what the leaders of today say it should mean in a "living document"... then why even bother having a Constitution? We can just get rid of it, and simply do what our current leaders tell us to do.

Sadly, over the last 100 years we tended to follow our media promoted leaders interpretations, rather than uphold the original intent of our Founders.

I agree, how can we on one hand talk about how great our founding fathers were, but turn around, in the same breath, say it was a good idea to add amendments just 100 years later (15 of them up to date)?

 

[Alawn]

As it was intended at the time each part was written. So at the original signing by the founders for the original part. Then the original intent at the ratification of each amendment. That is what original intent means. You can't look at the amendments before they were written because they didn't exist yet. And you don't want to look at the original parts when the amendments were written. Look at the original intent when each part was made. The 16th and 17th amendments NEED to be repealed as well.

 

[Original_Intent]

All I mean by Original Intent is that the words they wrote mean what the founders intended them to mean, not what they can be interpreted to mean.

All amendments that were made according to the blueprint for amending the Constitution are legitimate imo, although not always wise.

My understanding is that the Bill of Rights cannot be "amended away", I would need to do some research to back that up though.

 

[Optatron]

As it was intended at the time each part was written. So at the original signing by the founders for the original part. Then the original intent at the ratification of each amendment.

So you respect and recognize each amendment, and wish to adhere to all of them?

That is what original intent means. You can't look at the amendments before they were written because they didn't exist yet. And you don't want to look at the original parts when the amendments were written. Look at the original intent when each part was made. The 16th and 17th amendments NEED to be repealed as well.

why 16 & 17? not 13, 14, 15?

 

[Optatron]

All I mean by Original Intent is that the words they wrote mean what the founders intended them to mean, not what they can be interpreted to mean.

All amendments that were made according to the blueprint for amending the Constitution are legitimate imo, although not always wise.

Ok. So as long as the 16th Amendment isn't repealed, you'll keep paying your income taxes?

My understanding is that the Bill of Rights cannot be "amended away", I would need to do some research to back that up though.

Let's leave the Bill of Rights alone, would you do away with 13 & later amendments?
I didn't arbitrarily pick amendments starting at 13, but because they were near 100 years after the Declaration, and after another war where Lincoln expanded the federal government.

 

[idiom]

The 18th was pretty cool.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The 18th was pretty cool.

hmmm...I didn't know prohibition was cool.

 

[Charlie41]

Delete everything after 1912. A good starting over point. At least this will put the federal reserve in file 13.

 

[10thAmendment]

Should we follow the Constitution with all the amendments as it is today?

Or go all the way back to our founders' version?

Or which amendments should get repeal?

Those of you who call yourself CONSTITUTIONALIST, or cry all day about FOUNDING FATHERS' ORIGINAL INTENT, how far back should we go?

Note that the problem with the Constitution is not actually the Constitution. The problem is, that as a consequence of widespread ignorance of the Constitution and its history, the corrupt federal government has been getting away with ignoring its constitutional limitations for quite some time.

But to better address your concern about problem amendments, please consider the following post about the ill-conceived 16th and 17th Amendments.

• For Tea Party Patriots: The 16th & 17th Amendments and the big, corrupt fed. gov.

 

[Optatron]

Note that the problem with the Constitution is not actually the Constitution. The problem is, that as a consequence of widespread ignorance of the Constitution and its history, the corrupt federal government has been getting away with ignoring its constitutional limitations for quite some time.

No, that IS the problem with the Constitution, that it can't enforce itself, or authorize people to enforce it.

But to better address your concern about problem amendments, please consider the following post about the ill-conceived 16th and 17th Amendments.

• For Tea Party Patriots: The 16th & 17th Amendments and the big, corrupt fed. gov.

So 13-15 are OK with you?

 

[zade]

If something's wrong with the Constitution it should be fixed. The Constitution permits the existence of slavery, it was necesary and right for that to be changed.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."-Jefferson

How does that fit with the "original intent" conviction?

 

[Zippyjuan]

The founding fathers recongnized that they could not anticipate every possible scenario so they made sure to include a mechanism to alter it in the future as deemed necessary. But they tried to set a high stardard for modifying it- reducing (but certainly not eliminating) the chances of petty things getting tagged on. Certainly not all the amendments were good but they also can be repealed like Prohibition was. This ability to change it is what helps to make it a "living" document.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No, that IS the problem with the Constitution, that it can't enforce itself, or authorize people to enforce it.

We have a winner!

 

[foofighter20x]

There's two types of originalism.

1) Framer's intent: this kind of originalism is a joke. You had 55 people with a hand in the making of the document, and only 39 of those signed it. Additionally, each framer may have had a different interpretation of certain phrases that were ambiguous or vague.

2) Original-meaning originalism: This is preferable to the former, as it's more objective in its scope. It also blends originalism and textualism to some extent. Simply put, it asks: how would the average person reading the document in 1787 have understood it? And the answers to that question are clearly documented in the ratification debates in each state. From all those debates, a clear and uniform meaning of several ambiguous or vague passages emerge, several of which have a clearly and inherently different "meaning" attributed to them at present.

Recommend you guys go to Randy Barnett's website and read everything there.