3 ms·

> I have controversial views This is nowhere controversial. Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue thi

> I have controversial views This is nowhere controversial. Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...

aerovistae 6y ago
I'm already upset.
nindalf 6y ago
> originalist You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.
- visiblink 6y ago
  Only for the purpose of giving additional political representation to southern white men. Otherwise, they weren't people at all.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? No, an originalist doesn't treat the unamended text as sacred, they (in principal) treat the original meaning (textualist) or intent (intentionalist) of the current, amended text as controlling. Also, you don't understand the 3/5 compromised which has nothing to do with the worth of a black person. It had to do with how much voting power free Whites should get on account of having enslaved Blacks; the free states mostly thought the answer ought to be zero, the slave states thought it ought to be equal to one free citizen per slave held, and the 3/5 compromised was the compromise to keep the two sides in one system. Saying that it represents a Black person being worth 3/5 of a White person makes it sound like you think that it would be more just of they had taken the position the slavers proposed, since that, apparently, would make Blacks of equal value to Whites.
  - mch82 6y ago
    Have you found people apply this logic consistently, or do you find people cherry pick?
    - Proziam 6y ago
      I fall firmly into the category being described. From my experience, the internet is an abysmal place to discuss these ideas regardless of which side you're on. The left and right both love to misapply statistics and misrepresent their counterparts whenever it's convenient to do so. Modern social platforms simply do not allow you the room to express the nuance required for the topics at hand. You need far more than 280 characters and a few memes to articulate a point where you have to literally reference text, history, and tradition because so few people are versed in it. The most incendiary example is the 2nd Amendment. Discussing it without your counterpart understanding the history and philosophies that spawned it (British longbow tradition, assize of arms laws from 1100s on, centralized Prussian style military vs militias, etc) makes for a nauseating experience.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alacombe 6y ago
  You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment. So in this case, an originalist would rule based on the Amendment, not the just Constitution's original text. And this display a crucial point, there is a legal process to amend the Constitution not relying on a few scholars re-re-re-interpretation. I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, as long as it's the Will of the People, not the Will of a few jurists. If you can get a Constitutional Amendment for the prohibition of intoxicating beverages, you can certainly get a Constitutional Amendment behind abortion... unless it's less of a consensus as you make it seems. Also, using one's 14th Amendment Right to privacy to "legalize" abortion is a pretty weak argument.
  - FactolSarin 6y ago
    There's two ways to interpret the constitution: the honest way, and the way where you pretend that not only were the Founders of one mind on what the Constitution meant, but also that you can read that mind two and a half centuries later.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      So, you are saying that textualist originalism, like Scalias, is the honest way, whereas intentionalist originalism is dishonest? (And, yeah, there's actually more than two ways to interpret the Constituion.)
      - dahdum 6y ago
        Not the OP, but of those two, I certainly agree textualism is more "honest". I don't see how you could ever divine a singular true intent behind a compromise of hundreds of divergent minds.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        "Textualism" requires divining a single true meaning as interpreted by some not-well-specified group contemporary to the writing, instead of doing so for the at least somewhat-well-specified group of people adopting the measure required for "intentionalism". (I think both forms of originalism are useful and important interpretive lenses, but I think taking either as universally decisive or even mistaking either for a decidable objective standard is deeply problematic.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dahdum 6y ago
> Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation... I don't think it's as rare or controversial as you think, many people just haven't formed a full opinion on judicial interpretation. Textualism in particular appeals to STEM folks. We've needlessly politicized them as Red Team vs Blue Team, when they don't see themselves as anything close to that. They're all first and foremost legal nerds. Now if you're making pro-life arguments wrapped with original intent, I can see you getting some aggressive pushback.

> I have controversial views This is nowhere controversial. Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...

aerovistae 6y ago

I'm already upset.

nindalf 6y ago

> originalist You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.

visiblink 6y ago
Only for the purpose of giving additional political representation to southern white men. Otherwise, they weren't people at all.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? No, an originalist doesn't treat the unamended text as sacred, they (in principal) treat the original meaning (textualist) or intent (intentionalist) of the current, amended text as controlling. Also, you don't understand the 3/5 compromised which has nothing to do with the worth of a black person. It had to do with how much voting power free Whites should get on account of having enslaved Blacks; the free states mostly thought the answer ought to be zero, the slave states thought it ought to be equal to one free citizen per slave held, and the 3/5 compromised was the compromise to keep the two sides in one system. Saying that it represents a Black person being worth 3/5 of a White person makes it sound like you think that it would be more just of they had taken the position the slavers proposed, since that, apparently, would make Blacks of equal value to Whites.
- mch82 6y ago
  Have you found people apply this logic consistently, or do you find people cherry pick?
  - Proziam 6y ago
    I fall firmly into the category being described. From my experience, the internet is an abysmal place to discuss these ideas regardless of which side you're on. The left and right both love to misapply statistics and misrepresent their counterparts whenever it's convenient to do so. Modern social platforms simply do not allow you the room to express the nuance required for the topics at hand. You need far more than 280 characters and a few memes to articulate a point where you have to literally reference text, history, and tradition because so few people are versed in it. The most incendiary example is the 2nd Amendment. Discussing it without your counterpart understanding the history and philosophies that spawned it (British longbow tradition, assize of arms laws from 1100s on, centralized Prussian style military vs militias, etc) makes for a nauseating experience.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
alacombe 6y ago
You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment. So in this case, an originalist would rule based on the Amendment, not the just Constitution's original text. And this display a crucial point, there is a legal process to amend the Constitution not relying on a few scholars re-re-re-interpretation. I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, as long as it's the Will of the People, not the Will of a few jurists. If you can get a Constitutional Amendment for the prohibition of intoxicating beverages, you can certainly get a Constitutional Amendment behind abortion... unless it's less of a consensus as you make it seems. Also, using one's 14th Amendment Right to privacy to "legalize" abortion is a pretty weak argument.
- FactolSarin 6y ago
  There's two ways to interpret the constitution: the honest way, and the way where you pretend that not only were the Founders of one mind on what the Constitution meant, but also that you can read that mind two and a half centuries later.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    So, you are saying that textualist originalism, like Scalias, is the honest way, whereas intentionalist originalism is dishonest? (And, yeah, there's actually more than two ways to interpret the Constituion.)
    - dahdum 6y ago
      Not the OP, but of those two, I certainly agree textualism is more "honest". I don't see how you could ever divine a singular true intent behind a compromise of hundreds of divergent minds.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        "Textualism" requires divining a single true meaning as interpreted by some not-well-specified group contemporary to the writing, instead of doing so for the at least somewhat-well-specified group of people adopting the measure required for "intentionalism". (I think both forms of originalism are useful and important interpretive lenses, but I think taking either as universally decisive or even mistaking either for a decidable objective standard is deeply problematic.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dahdum 6y ago

> Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation... I don't think it's as rare or controversial as you think, many people just haven't formed a full opinion on judicial interpretation. Textualism in particular appeals to STEM folks. We've needlessly politicized them as Red Team vs Blue Team, when they don't see themselves as anything close to that. They're all first and foremost legal nerds. Now if you're making pro-life arguments wrapped with original intent, I can see you getting some aggressive pushback.