Posted on 07/18/2005 4:42:20 PM PDT by phoenix0468
Just wondering what an originalist is from the most recent poll. I honestly have never heard the term and would like to know what it means.
Thanks fellow FReepers.
it means that the person is someone who will interpret the Constitution the way it was written, instead of applying a political stance to it.
I was thinking that's what it meant, but I abhore assuption and appreciate the clearification.
I am an originalist. Therefore, I also abhore many of the Ammendments to the constitution. I look at them as foolhearty "interpretation" of very clear and highly effective original articles.
An originalist isn't just someone who will interpret the Constitution the way it's written, but the way it was meant to be interpreted, as explained in the Federalist Papers. The term comes from the "original intent" of the Founders, not the "original text" of the Constitution.
As long as we've got this civics class going, let me add a follow-up question...
Seems as though this cycle is about the only time I've heard the term "originalist" come up (granted that "cycle" has been a few years). I had always seen the term "constructionist" applied to one with such leanings (or lack thereof). Is there a subtle distinction between the terms "originalist" and "constructionist", or is it just kind of a FReeper preference?
in sharp contrast to some of our u.s. supremes who want to employ european court decisions in their thought processes.
liberal american universities follow the european socialist, communist and anarchist movements.
among these people "18th c dead, white male" enlightenment literature is out. the u.s constitution is an 18th c enlightenment-derived creation.
they've substituted "critical thinking" for rationalism and logic because these are too white male like.
It's a renaming. Strict constructionist is the historical term, but originalist gets the meaning across, making it more politically marketable.
I guess it would be too much to hope that someday the Federalist Papers will become required reading in our high schools.
It would, due to time constraints in semester course planning. I'd say being familiar with the Constitution is good enough.
Too many schools have dropped American civics all together and just lump it in with American history.
For a Originalist, a interpretational ruling does not go any farther than the edge of the paper OR change with social want's & whim's, unless the law, that is, the Text, changes. All interpretations should be done through the Framers lens of "original meaning". AND that is defined as the original understanding of the text at the time it was drafted & ratified. That makes it a theory or philosophy, and is much better than JUST "intent".
It is not the exact same as an "strict constructionist".
My HS grouped government with economics in an 18-week course.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.