Reply To: History and Constitutional Debate


(starting a separate post for clarity).

Where was I? Oh, yes: one of the problems is the common phrase “original intent,” which allows people to say “we cannot know intent.” Which is true, under some definitions of “intent” (was, for example, Hamilton sincere in some of the arguments he made before the Constitution was ratified? Or was his real intent something closer to the arguments he made about what Federal powers were after it was ratified?)

The real standard is original meaning – the meaning of the terms and phrases, as understood at the time, and as inscribed in the written records/documents at the time of ratification. These are not nearly as “unclear” or “vague” as Progressives like to say (the reason they argue that is precisely so that they can substitute their own instead, at their discretion, and with a “standard” that changes with as demanded by their instrumental utility).

original meaning is the only way to interpret the constitution; the other, bogus, standard renders it a dead letter (aka “living document” – “living’ simply means “meaningless and dead by any serious measure.”)

Of course, it actually is. Your actual Constitution is Footnote 4. But reminding them of the discrepancy is useful; it may tug at their conscience (if they have one) or persuade the average open-minded person that the current USG is not worthy of their respect or support, as it is an illegitimate usurpation.