Appeal to authority, forefathers logical fallacy?

[HappyOD]

The question assumes that the country is getting poor results as a consequence of following the constitution, and therefore, we should consider changing the system to improve our results. I believe the basis of the question is fallacious. The results achieved thus far, guided by the principals and rules of law handed down by the founding fathers, can only be described as miraculous, when viewed in any reasonable historical context. Therein lies the rub. Historical context is practically non-existent in our society. A small sample of historical accomplishments would include the eradication of diseases that commonly decimated hundreds of thousands, 100 fold increases in crop production, life expectancy increases at the greatest rate in history, saving the European continent from facism twice, quality of life advances in every aspect of material comforts, and on and on. To suggest that the system is producing poor results is simply an indication of the lack of historical knowledge within our society. Never has a system of government produced more good for more people.

I believe if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[mpethybridge]

[quoteThere is absolutely no evidence that the drafters of the Constitution wanted us to use their standards today. When they spoke of "cruel and unusual punishement," for example, they didn't expect that we would have the same standards in the third century after they wrote those words as they did.

There is no such thing as clear original intent. The Framers clearly intended there be no such thing, which is why they met in secret without recording the proceedings.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using an argument of the original intent of the framers to argue that they had no original intent. I find this rhetorical move very amusing. More importantly, it conclusively disproves that original intent cannot be discerned, for, according to you, you have discerned it.

Here I had written a long explication of how the Establishment Clause proves that original intent is easily discernible. But I figured you know better already.

Folks, people who say original intent is unknowable are lying to you, pure and simple (some, I suppose, are innocent victims of the lie). If you want to know whether the Constitution allows (whether the original framers intended to permit) you to possess an automatic weapon, just read the second amendment. The answer is plainly obvious, even though automatic weapons did not then exist. If you want to know whether the constitution permits the death penalty, the answer is obvious from reading the Fifth Amendment. If you want to know whether Congress can ban partial birth abortions, the answer is also plainly obvious, as is whether the framers intended to continue allowing states to regulate abortions. If you want to know the answer to the constitutionality of any policy question ever debated, all you have to do is read the constitution and the answer is right there, usually (but not always) as plain as the nose on your face.

People say original intent is unknowable because they don't like the original intent and for no other reason. Not liking the original intent is an argument for amending the constitution, not ignoring the obvious intent.

This argument, that original intent is unknowable, was essentially invented in the '60s by people who held a minority opinion on interpreting the 1st Amendment--it was an excuse to impose their unpopular and unconstitutional views on the majority. as those views became the majority view, so did the rationalization that original intent is unknowable.

This whole subject consumes books, and cannot be done justice here. But I can and will explain further and support with evidence every statement I have made here, should anybody challenge them.

And, oh, by the way: the reason the framers met in secret and kept no official record was because they had gathered for the purpose of amending the articles of confederation. The leadership had decided before the convention to scrap the articles and start anew, quickly imposed this view on the others, and did not want word of their exceeding their authority to leak out, lest some delegations be recalled and the convention fall apart. It had nothing to do with concealing their thoughts from posterity.

[ArturiusX]

Constitution = the 10 commandments now?

[andyfox]

OK, I'll bite. Let's focus on one issue you've brought up. I want to know if the Constitution allows me to possess an automatic weapon. I've read the second amendment.

I agree with you assessment of why there was no official recorder at the Convention; Madison had indeed decided he wanted to have a new Constitution, and that was likely one important reason why the proceedings were not recorded. But he could have published his notes after the Constitution was a fait accompli. (However, he might well have decided not to because some of the debates might have provided counterclaims to policies he was in favor of while he was in Congress or while President.)

BTW, we've recently debated this very issue in the politics forum.

[LibertyP]

The American people adopted the concept of a limited federal government, with the bulk of power residing with the "sovereign states.” That was clearly stated in the 10th Amendment. This was the agreement sold to the American people and, in turn, ratified by them.

The states of Virginia and Rhode Island even sent documents that accompanied their ratification, stating their approval was contingent on the integrity of that 10th Amendment. However, judicial activist and their wild interpretations have fabricated rationales that over time have rendered that 10th Amendment impotent.

There is no question that parts of the Constitution were left purposefully vague to allow for unforeseen circumstances. However, the intent of the founders are clear on a number of issues, although often ignored by those who find them inconvenient. Perhaps, the Federalist Papers represent the best single resource in shedding light on those intentions.

Originalists would suggest that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment since it was the norm during the days of the Founders. Also, originalists could easily discern no Constitutional protection for abortion, since abortions (though rare) did happened during their time, yet no one thought their was some Constitutional right to have them, lingering somewhere between the lines.

Those with disdain for the founder’s concept of limited government, have used judicial activist to achieve their goal of a powerful centralized government. The mechanism that has allowed this has to do with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter in disputes between the federal government and the states. As an arm of the federal government, the Court is a party to the action. The results produced are much like the result that one could expect if my brother mediated a disputes between you and I.

There is no supreme wisdom that is bestowed upon lawyers when they don black robes. Today, most of our Justices are unelected political shills, starting out with a desired outcome and then fabricated a rationale to make that their decision. That is one reason, we are best served by originalists like Scalia or Thomas.

Another significant reason we should want the words of the Constitution to mean what they say, is that is where our rights reside. We wouldn’t want the entire Bill of Rights to suffer the same fate as the 10th Amendment.

[andyfox]

"most of our Justices are unelected political shills, starting out with a desired outcome and then fabricated a rationale to make that their decision. That is one reason, we are best served by originalists like Scalia or Thomas."

Scalia has admitted that he is very conservative. And, lo and behold, his judicial decisions turn out to favor conservative positions. Why are we not to believe that originalism, for him, is an intellecutal cover-up for his preferences?

The best definition of a judge that I have heard, is that he is a lawyer who knew a governor.

[LibertyP]

You make a great point, especially regarding the definition of a Justice.

If you want to know what originalism is to Scalia, I suggest you listen to him explain in his own words. Below is a link at which you can hear a debate between himself and a true activist, Justice Breyer.

The telling comments come when each Justice is asked if they ever made a decision in which they did not like the result, but felt compelled to make it because the law required that they do. Scalia listed several such incidents and Breyer could not list one. I believe the reason is that Justice Breyer begins with the desired outcome and rationalizes backward.

That debate is here: http://fora.tv/fora/fora_player.php?c=707

[andyfox]

Thanks for the link. I read Justice Scalia's explanation in the New Yorker a few years back, and found it unconvincing. I'll see if I can locate it.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, we've recently debated this very issue in the politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a little old (stale?) but well worth reading. Here's the link.

~ Rick