Posted on 02/14/2016 6:04:52 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
I have read about a dozen articles and blog posts about Scalia. All mention "originalism," and NONE mention WHY originalism matters.
The reason "originalism" matters is that if we do not know or care what the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution or other laws MEANT, then there is no such thing as SELF-GOVERNMENT. The reason is NOT that the Founders were perfect, or all-wise, or especially virtuous, or that they were "divinely inspired." The reason is: SELF-GOVERNMENT.
The very REASON the nonsense of the "living Constitution" was invented was that the judges wanted to govern, in place of the people.
Hear! Hear!
The supreme court has no enforcement powers.
Thinking people should ask themselves why they have no enforcement power.
One of the most important safeguards left to us by the founders is under seige. One of the self-evident truths being obfuscated is that they meant something other than born here of citizen parents with no other possibility of being anything other than a US Citizen when they used the term natural born citizen in Art II Sec. 1.
One can only NATURALLY be a US citizen when there is no other possibility.
Born here of citizen parents.
Natural born citizen.
I think there is a more important point than what you are saying actually. Without originalism, the document is subject to whatever interpretation the next shmoe in a black robe decides it to be. Unless there is an accepted baseline in meaning to the constitution, then it means absolutely nothing and is subject to judicial whim. At that point there is no rule of law whatsoever.
At that point there is no bill of rights and no limitations on government whatsoever subject to the fad of the judiciary.
Mind you, we’re already far too close to that now given the composition of the court. The loss of Scalia really is a catastrophe.
I prefer the term “Mutationalism” as the counter to “Originalism”.
For example, Stevens’ “public benefit” BS in Kelo v. New London is a hideous mutation to the Constitution. Thus,”mutationalism”.
Scalia:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/a-view-from-the-court-some-surprises-in-penultimate-session/
On the first question, he says, ‘the majority has to invent new rules for how long a recess can be before the President is allowed to make recess appointments: A three-day break is too short. A four-to-nine day break is probably too short, unless the President can persuade a court that the situation was really urgent. And ten days is probably long enough most of the time, although the majority isn’t really clear about that.” “These new rules have no basis whatsoever in the Constitution,” Scalia continues. “They are just made up.”
Exactly.
None of our first nine presidents were born in the United States of parents who were US citizens. So I wonder if your argument can be sustained on historic grounds. Why weren’t they all disqualified?
Scalia indicated you needed Jus Soli to run for President. So when you post on threads about Scalia..remember that fact.
After hearing that Justice Scalia preferred “textualism”, I had to look it up. Here’s a snippet from wikipedia:
The textualist will “look at the statutory structure and hear the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words.”[2] The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text. Textualism is often erroneously conflated with originalism, and is advocated by US Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia; the latter staked out his claim in his 1997 Tanner Lecture: “[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., although not a textualist himself, well-captured the philosophy, and its rejection of intentionalism: “We ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used ... We do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statutes mean.”[3]
Explained this way, it is easy to see why the discplined mind like Scalia’s would prefer textualism. Once you go beyond the literal meaning of the text you’re on the slippery slope that we all know well.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
**************************************************
The part after the first comma.
It exempted them because they knew it would be a while until there were natural born citizens.
Because they were specifically exempted from the requirement. Article II specifically exempts anyone born before 1776.
This has been covered so many times in the last 8 years that I am surprised that there are still people who do not know this.
The very first "natural born citizen" President was Martin Van Burin. He was born in 1782. No one born prior to 1776 could be a "natural citizen" because the country hadn't been created yet.
That is exactly right!!!
Without originalism, there is no rule of law. There is a procedure to modify the constitution if it needs modifying. To modify it on a judges whim without following the proscribed process is to violate the rule of law and the rights of all who accepted the constitution as the law.
Exactly.
Because they were specifically “grandfathered” as a group. Kind of hard to be born in a country that did not exist.
And of course, there is no hint in the Constitution that there is a “right of privacy” that a state infringes if it prohibits the killing of a baby.
And there is no hint in the Constitution that there is such a thing as a “trimester” in a pregnancy. It is scandalous that virtually everybody speaks of “trimesters” when talking about pregnancy. Until Roe v. Wade, NOBODY ever spoke of anything other than “months” or “weeks.”
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.