[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only real record of original intent is found in the Constitutional Convention's Journal and the notes James Madison took on the debates.



straw man argument.



You are either ignorant, a fool or both.

Quote:
I mean the federalist and anti federalist papers are pretty much a lot of discussion.



Were any of the Anti-Federalist Papers written by delegates to the Constitutional Convention? If not, then the anti-Federalist papers don't represent anyone's original intent. And furthermore the Constituion represents the majority opinion of the Federalists, not the Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists were in no position to explain the original intent of a docuement they didn't want to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) why am I an ignorant fool for pointiong out that the journal and madisons notes are not the only record? ad hominem btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the delegates, no doubt, did not maintain a consistent opinion as to what the Constitution meant or what they wanted the federal government to be- not even in the short time between the Convention and the completion of ratification. Randolph did not support ratification, but he did support the Constitution once it was ratified and in operation. At the Convention Hamilton proposed ideas that none of the other delegates took seriously, but he eventually supported the watered-down Constitution that was ratified.

Original intent cannot be consistently and reliably found outside of the Constitutional Convention, and Madison’s Notes are the main record of what was actually discussed and approved by the Constitutional Convention- but they were not published until decades after the Convention meaning no one had a reliable record of original intent.

BTW: The official Journal of the Constitutional Convention essentially didn't record anything but the votes that were taken, and I gather that the Journal isn't always supported by Madison's Notes.