angelofdeath Posted November 20, 2005 Author Share Posted November 20, 2005 "Ummm, there are a lot of rights we take for granted that are not "in the constitution." Originalists/textualists are dumb. Let me explain why. Originalists are dumb on three points: 1) There is no "original intent" of the constitution the federalists and anti-federalists were diametrically opposed on a lot of issues which means that the constitution is a compromise. 2) The idea that the framers wanted or thought that their intent would be used 200 years from the drafting is asenine. 3) If Originalism is true, the framers thought that blacks were 2/3 of a person, therefore Brown v. Bd. of Educ. should be overturned immediately. Textualism is dumb simply because there is no way to read a document and for it to have anything but the most superficial meaning without understanding the context and interpreting the words." first point: "1) There is no "original intent" of the constitution the federalists and anti-federalists were diametrically opposed on a lot of issues which means that the constitution is a compromise" your point drives my point home, very good. the constitution was written basically as to establish a free trade zone among the states, as most states imposed tariffs on commerce between states under the articles. it was written to please the anti federalists who didnt want a concentration of power. there wouldnt of been a constitution ratified if it wasnt for the bill of rights. the "original intent" is what the constitution says, not what someone wants it to say. there was debate over stuff in the constitution before it was ratified, once ratified it was the supreme law of the land. 2nd point: "2) The idea that the framers wanted or thought that their intent would be used 200 years from the drafting is asenine." this point is bogus. the consitution says, what it says. it can be amended however. lets look what madison said in the federalist papers... "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." third point: " 3) If Originalism is true, the framers thought that blacks were 2/3 of a person, therefore Brown v. Bd. of Educ. should be overturned immediately." most originalists believe that the feds do not have power to regulate this issue. they believe it is the job of the soveriegn states. the constitution was amended to make blacks equal. this made it a federal issue. blacks are equal and things like affirmative action are not consitutional. Walter Williams a black conservative (an originalist, if you will) makes a great point that more tyranny than any jim crow law will come to this land at the hand of a strong central government. he believes the states should retain reclaim there sovereign powers through the non existent 9th and 10th amendments. he also says some other things like... and about students... "Black politicians and civil rights organizations' loyalty to the education establishment means academic doom to black youngsters. Washington, D.C,. politics and its schools, among the worse in the nation, are a case in point. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, use private schools to educate their children. But, when D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams broke ranks with most black elected-officials and endorsed recently proposed education vouchers, Norton blasted him as being "a sell-out.Whom do you think Frederick Douglass would deem the sell-out: those who seek an alternative to rotten schools that cost taxpayers $13,000 a year per student or those who support the status quo?" or... "I don't blame only politicians. For the most part, they're only the instruments of a people who have growing contempt for our Constitution. You say, "Hold it, Williams. Now you've gone too far!" Check it out. How many votes do you think a James Madison-type senatorial candidate would get if his campaign theme was something like this: "Elect me to office. I will protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Because there's no constitutional authority for Congress spending on the objects of benevolence, don't expect for me to vote for prescription drugs for the elderly, handouts to farmers and food stamps for the poor. Instead, I'll fight these and other unconstitutional congressional expenditures"? I'll tell you how many votes he'll get: It will be Williams' vote, and that's it." but its quite clear this man is racist, like the consitution. Joseph Sobran, an orginalist sums things up pretty good. (see below) our founders, originalists themselves, favored a small limited government, with VERY FEW POWERS. this was normal, everyday thought. for shits sake we just got done fighting a revolution over an assfuck wanting to tax us without the colonies having representation in parliament. this was common classical liberal thought at the time. look at us now.... "If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.