US constitution original intent question

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Walter Williams on proposed Enumerated Powers Act

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard of this, 99% sure ron paul was one of the co-sponsors.

[flaja]

The issue of the Constitution’s original intent is as old as the document itself, and determining original intent has always been a most difficult task.

Some modern day politicians and pundits believe they can find original intent in the in the writings of the Framers of the Constitution. But, how do we do this when the Framers left so little in the way of writings? And what do we do when Framers were not all of one mind?

What about Edmund Randolph, who proposed the Virginia Plan at the Convention, then refused to sign the document because he though the central government would have too much power and then ended up supporting ratification before serving in Washington's cabinet? What was Randolph's original intent?

What about Alexander Hamilton? He spoke only briefly at the Convention and then went home because New York's other two delegates always outvoted him. But Hamilton then returned to the Convention after those other delegates had left the Convention themselves. Hamilton played only a little role in writing the Constitution, but he had a major influence on how the Constitution was implemented.

And what about James Madison? Both Hamilton and Madison were authors of the Federalist Papers, but once the government was set up they joined opposing political factions- Hamilton a Federalist in favor of a strong government, Madison an Antifederalist in favor of a limited government.

And then there's George Washington who refused to exercise any presidential leadership (while also usurping the power of the federal courts) by refusing to veto any legislation he did not personally think was unconstitutional no matter how much he personally disagreed with the legislation.

So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

The only real record of original intent is found in the Constitutional Convention's Journal and the notes James Madison took on the debates. But, the Journal was not published until 1818 and Madison's notes were not published until 1840. That means the nation did not know what the Framers really wanted the Constitution to mean for the first 50 years of the document's existence.

The Constitution itself is little help. The Framers left the Constitution intentionally vague in many places. For example, what does a term of "good behavior" mean? Does it mean a federal judge has lifetime tenure as long as he does not violate statutory law? Or does it mean, as many libertarians and a few right-wing types believe, that the judge can serve as long as he does not issue a ruling that certain segments of the population object to?

Also, what is cruel and unusual punishment? Why was hanging acceptable at one time, but not now?

And how can the Constitution say no religious test for federal office is allowed, but then say the Constitution was "done in convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." Just who is the Lord that the Constitution acknowledges?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

straw man argument. I mean the federalist and anti federalist papers are pretty much a lot of discussion.

It's a persuasive propaganda type argument to persuade the ignorant, that nobody really knows what was meant at the time of writing the const.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
if the commerce clause and general welfare little clause allow US fed gov to do pretty much anything, as a lot people think (and is our current law)



if this were true, you might have a point...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the general welfare clause, the Supreme Court has ruled that clause has no legal effect. The general welfare clause is not used as justification for new laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

well what's the constitutional justification for federal welfare then, for wealth transfer programs?

I mean, I can't find it anywhere in the const., and people who can (to best of my knowledge), point to general welfare thingee.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I was being overly nitty. According to Wiki you're right: the general welfare clause is the justification for social spending. I was interpreting the phrase "pay the debts" to be a separate clause.

The Supreme Court ruled in US v. Butler (1936) that the general welfare clause constituted an independent power of Congress to spend money on whatever it wants. Probably not coincidentally, this decision was handed down shortly after the implementation of the New Deal and the Court Packing Scheme.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

straw man argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are either ignorant, a fool or both.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean the federalist and anti federalist papers are pretty much a lot of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

And considering there were something like 56 delegates to the Convention and there are 39 signatures on the document, but only 3 men wrote the Federalist Papers (one of whom wasn't a delegate to the Convention), how can you honestly find original intent in the Federalist Papers?

[lehighguy]

Indeed. Most of the important supreme court decisions handed down in the 30s were unconstitutional. FDR literally threatened to destroy the court if it didn't do what he said.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Or does it mean, as many libertarians and a few right-wing types believe, that the judge can serve as long as he does not issue a ruling that certain segments of the population object to?

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf??

[ QUOTE ]

And how can the Constitution say no religious test for federal office is allowed, but then say the Constitution was "done in convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." Just who is the Lord that the Constitution acknowledges?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never knew dating a document was a religious test.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

straw man argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are either ignorant, a fool or both.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean the federalist and anti federalist papers are pretty much a lot of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

And considering there were something like 56 delegates to the Convention and there are 39 signatures on the document, but only 3 men wrote the Federalist Papers (one of whom wasn't a delegate to the Convention), how can you honestly find original intent in the Federalist Papers?

[/ QUOTE ]

James Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Did Thomas Jefferson write any of the Federalist papers? No matter, for his view is quite clear also:

Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

straw man argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are either ignorant, a fool or both.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean the federalist and anti federalist papers are pretty much a lot of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

And considering there were something like 56 delegates to the Convention and there are 39 signatures on the document, but only 3 men wrote the Federalist Papers (one of whom wasn't a delegate to the Convention), how can you honestly find original intent in the Federalist Papers?

[/ QUOTE ]

James Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Did Thomas Jefferson write any of the Federalist papers? No matter, for his view is quite clear also:

Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

[/ QUOTE ]

John, his point, I believe, was how can the writings of three men be good enough to give us the intent of the majority of people present at the constitutional convention.

I disagree with that though. I think they're good enough, all we have, and what they write makes complete sense for a constitution that basically served to make sure we didn't end up with another King George.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

straw man argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are either ignorant, a fool or both.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean the federalist and anti federalist papers are pretty much a lot of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

And considering there were something like 56 delegates to the Convention and there are 39 signatures on the document, but only 3 men wrote the Federalist Papers (one of whom wasn't a delegate to the Convention), how can you honestly find original intent in the Federalist Papers?

[/ QUOTE ]

James Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Did Thomas Jefferson write any of the Federalist papers? No matter, for his view is quite clear also:

Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

[/ QUOTE ]

John, his point, I believe, was how can the writings of three men be good enough to give us the intent of the majority of people present at the constitutional convention.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because that was their whole purpose was to represent the Constitutional Convention. If other delegates disagreed with what they were saying, they would have done so publicly and on record. Also, Madison wrote the damned thing.

This is like asking how our ambassador to the U.N. or X country can speak for our government.