With the mid term elections closing in the mud is really starting to fly. Incredible accusations are being made. I hear a lot of arguments supported with the phrase, “the intentions of the original framers of The Constitution!”
If an argument is made against their point, they’ll back it up with a quote from a founding father. I’ve done this myself, although I’ve never lied that I knew the founders intentions. I consider anyone who uses the phrase to be a liar and can not respect anything they say.
The original states, except
55 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention sessions and only 39 actually signed. Delegates ranged in age from Jonathan Dayton, aged 26, to Benjamin Franklin, aged 81, who was so infirm that he had to be carried to the sessions.
Almost to a man, there were disagreements. The articles were deliberately left a little vague to be argued. The Bill of Rights and further amendments would have to be added.
Constitutional originalism is an incredibly shallow way to view or Constitution.
It’s sad that our “non political” branch of government, The Supreme Court, has gotten so politicized.
The Constitutional constructivist view favored by the conservatives on the court is presumably to keep current justices from creating law. I can respect that, but it’s wrong. Our Constitution is a living document and the court doesn’t get off that easy. The Bill of Rights proves it’s a living document. Real justice will always be a work in progress.
You can’t simply quote one of the founding fathers to prove an argument. That would be like backing an argument with a passage from the bible. You can support any argument that way. The Constitution’s preamble says it all………………