Do you believe the Constitution should be approached from an "originalist" or from a "pragmatic" perspective??

2016-02-16T21:58:40-05:00

How do you believe the Constitution should be interpreted? As the Framers intended it to be understood. As it's text is reads in literal terms absent original context or case law. Or, as a ever-evolving reference point influenced by case law, judicial review, and the changing beliefs of the People?

CPT L S, CPT Jack Durish , LTC Stephen C. , TSgt Hunter Logan , PO2 Ed C., COL Mikel J. Burroughs, MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca CDR Michael Goldschmidt

Response by SFC Wade W. made Feb 16 at 2016 10:00 PM

2016-02-16T22:00:16-05:00

The Constitution is not a living document. It has given us the ability for amendments but not interpretation.

Response by SFC Justin Scott made Feb 16 at 2016 10:02 PM

2016-02-16T22:02:13-05:00

The Constitution is meant to be interpreted using historical linguistics (as the framers intended). Case law has no relevance, nor does changing beliefs. The founders provided a means to amend the Constitution if the people deemed it necessary!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 16 at 2016 10:03 PM

2016-02-16T22:03:07-05:00

It was written in very plain language (unlike most laws these days) understandable by the common man. Reinterpreting it at the will of the majority simply destroys its integrity. Reinterpreting it at the will of individuals in power is the basis of tyranny.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Feb 16 at 2016 10:03 PM

2016-02-16T22:03:08-05:00

It is society's responsibility to update, change, and amend the Constitution through due process to make it fit its needs. That is why the Constitution is amendable. It should not however be the court's job to change the "interpretation" of one thing to mean something it clearly did not. That's not a living document, that just makes the document irrelevant since the court can just choose it to mean whatever they want.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 10:11 PM

2016-02-16T22:11:37-05:00

It is what it is to read things in there that are not there is wrong. If it needed to be changed for the times then there is a way to do that. You can read into the Constitution as you would like why it was written and what is written is very important. Case law is there to constancy apply the Constitution to modern problems not to change what is there.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Feb 16 at 2016 10:15 PM

2016-02-16T22:15:39-05:00

The Constitution was never meant to be a static document to rule the United States for all time. The Founders recognized that society would change and that the document would necessarily change as well - hence the amendment process. Jefferson at least thought that the Constitution should be essentially rewritten every generation.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 16 at 2016 10:20 PM

2016-02-16T22:20:59-05:00

Reinforcing the extant votes for it means what it says it means, if it is in anyway unclear, discover what the writers mot likely meant. Don't like that? Change it, they made a process for that.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 10:49 PM

2016-02-16T22:49:09-05:00

Absolutely from an "originalist" POV. To understand it, one only has to read it, to know what the Framers intended, might I suggest reading the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm

The Federalist Papers Online

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 11:02 PM

2016-02-16T23:02:44-05:00

Case Law is not Constitutional Law. If the founders wanted case law to supersede it's own language, they would have stated so in the document itself. Instead they wrote into it, the amendment process. If you want to change the Constitution, go through the amendment process.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Feb 16 at 2016 11:10 PM

2016-02-16T23:10:36-05:00

All hail constitutional law! Americans, most of whom have no legal education somehow know everything about the constitution. Imagine trying to interpret Miranda from the perception of President Washington? We all see, hear and read the multitude of interpretation from every segment of society. I'd ask, would our founding fathers have written something to be strict and literal so as not to evolve (sound a bit like Britain back in the 16th century) or something that can (and would) become the model for democracy? Any time there is "anything" with room for discussion, there is a point of contest. Problem is, the vast majority of Amerricans have absolutely no clue about law in any way, shape or form. They only know what they want to think is an interpretation that best promotes their point of view.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Feb 16 at 2016 11:27 PM

2016-02-16T23:27:00-05:00

If we don't follow the Constitution as written, but rather interpret it to mean what we prefer that it said we really won't have a Constitution for any practical purposes; our freedoms will only last as long as they don't conflict with the ideology of the elites on the high court. The Constitution contains within it the means to change it, and ignoring it is NOT that means.

Response by CSM William Payne made Feb 16 at 2016 11:58 PM

2016-02-16T23:58:07-05:00

The problem will always be that we can only make an educated guess as to what the founding fathers meant when they wrote those words. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and open to interpretation. Both Ted Cruz and Barack Obama are Constitutional scholars but they sure have different views as to what the Consitution says.

Thomas Jefferson wanted to be remembered for just three things; being the author of the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and being the father of the University of Virginia. Most of my colleagues believe that the 1st Ammendment's reference to religion is to protect religion from the goverment. Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom. It was the precursor of the establishment and free exercise clause of the 1st amendment. It was pretty obvious that the Virginia statue was meant to protect the citizen from overbearing religion, which in his day was the Church of England. As president Jefferson referred to the "wall of separation" between church and state which led to the term separation of church and state that people like to state is not in the Constitution. It's is not but was surely what Jefferson intended.

Response by CSM William Payne made Feb 17 at 2016 12:03 AM

2016-02-17T00:03:13-05:00

Great question.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2016 12:04 AM

2016-02-17T00:04:04-05:00

Funny, how our founding fathers could write such a powerful document in a way an average man can understand its meaning, but our congress can't even write a law regarding j-walkiing without a PHD from Harvard Law. Obamacare...even the lawyers can't agree on it's meaning.

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Feb 17 at 2016 1:27 AM

2016-02-17T01:27:03-05:00

to understand the intent of the constitution, one should read the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist papers. The original intent, if followed, allows for the most freedom and the least about of government intrusion in our lives. Problem is, we have expanded the federal government far beyond what it is supposed to do. Check out Article 1, Section 8... That and that alone is what the federal government should be doing. All the rest is left up to the states.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 17 at 2016 6:57 AM

2016-02-17T06:57:55-05:00

This boils down to Spirit of the Law or Letter of the Law.

We have a Court to judge Spirit of the Law because the Letter of the Law will NEVER be able to adequately cover ALL instances. We cannot forecast the future, therefore we write from our own experiences. The Framers did so in "plain English" of their era which makes it fairly easy to interpret the Context of the 4 page document we call our Constitution. Additionally, we have other documents like the Federalist Papers which provide additional Context or Spirit for further clarification.

The issue with "changing beliefs of the People" is that allows the "Moving of the Goal Posts" so to speak. What was considered a fundamental or natural Right then can shift to merely a privilege now. We see this with arguments like Privacy and Firearms Ownership. Concepts like "need" creep into Rights, which are not compatible, and frankly irrelevant.

Therefore, we must stay with the original Spirit as must as we are able, as it is Written.

However what is nice about our Constitution is that it is fairly succinct in its approach. It grants the government specific Powers, and it restricts the government in certain ways. That's really it. Unless something is specifically "disallowed" (either via Protections or Balance of Powers) chances are it is allowed in some context. The issue is that once the Court has rules a specific thing is (dis)allowed, we must figure out where that applies in "other" cases. Rulings are narrow, intentionally, which cause more rulings, ad nauseum.

Response by Alan K. made Feb 17 at 2016 8:39 AM

2016-02-17T08:39:38-05:00

I think they should stop messing with the foundation of the house we call America.......Keep picking at it and the house will fall down

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Feb 17 at 2016 9:35 AM

2016-02-17T09:35:25-05:00

The problem with the Constitution, or rather modern interpretation thereof, is that the legalism has been divorced from the context of the philosophy that informed it. Were I a Senator, I'd ask EVERY SINGLE judicial nominee before me when was the last time they read the 2nd Treatise on Government by John Locke and to comment on their views of it.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2016 9:59 AM

2016-02-17T09:59:32-05:00

Much has been done that has altered our society, sometimes for the better, and sometimes not, because a judge or the SC Justices decided to create law from the ether.
I think that the Constitution says what it says, and if you want it to say something else, there is a process for that. The fact that it has become normal to use judicial review to overturn and change existing law is an indictment of what is not going right in this country.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 17 at 2016 11:10 AM

2016-02-17T11:10:15-05:00

Pragmatic. It's a drastically different world. One wouldn't use Atari blueprints to try and maintain a high end Alienware gaming rig, for much the same reason...

Response by PO3 Michael Cardinale made Feb 17 at 2016 12:07 PM

2016-02-17T12:07:22-05:00

I would say that the best way to view our Constitution would be to review the document as written and if a need arises to interpret the constitution that should fall to SCOTUS.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Feb 18 at 2016 11:10 AM

2016-02-18T11:10:14-05:00

It should not be "interpreted" at all. It's a literal document, written in a literal way. There is a Constitutional process to amend it when need arises.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Feb 19 at 2016 9:13 AM

2016-02-19T09:13:54-05:00

I would say from an Originalist standpoint and I want to believe that through the will of the people and not just a few that hold the power, that amendments to the constitution will be well thought out, discussed, argued, challenged, and finally adopted to keep it current with our changing society and the modernization of mankind - in the right and correct ways - one can only hope!

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 19 at 2016 10:55 AM

2016-02-19T10:55:01-05:00

If we allow a pragmatic interpretation on the constitution, we are allowing someone else's interpretation to rule over us instead of the natural process which is there to protect the people.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Dec 30 at 2018 10:52 AM

2018-12-30T10:52:12-05:00

Some good responses, on all 3 sides. What I consider is the differences of 1787 and 2018. Back then we had a population of about 4 million. Today; 350 million. Travel was slow. We had slaves. Women did not have the right to vote. People were allowed to indenture others for debts. Firearms were single-shot muzzle loaders. Our nation was much more rural than urban.
All of those changes must be considered when discussing our Constitution.
I respect the Constitution and those who wrote it. We must keep in mind though that they were not united in their opinions. Some of our founders did not even sigh the document.
I believe they got it right when they included the amendment options. However, we fell into civil war when that amendment system failed. Are there again? I hope not.
So, I must vote as a pragmatist. We must find ways to keep our nation united and I hope the Constitution is the means to do so. To do so, it must work for everyone.