Madison and Jefferson destory Orginalism.

[white_wolf]

So today in class we talked about Orginalism and some of its criticisms. My professor pointed out that Orginalists tend to rely heavily on Madison's notes to understand the Constitutional Convention, but Madison himself said the following: As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitutions, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character."

Madison also said: "The meaning of the Constitution must emerge over time and as a result of experience."

Finally Jefferson said the following: "I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

So can we please drop this Orginalism crap? It's kind of pathetic at this point, oh and don't even get me started on the contract analogy.

[moondust]

1. They knew.

Any constitution must be interpreted and adapted on an ongoing basis as times change and people evolve. One can only hope that those who do the interpreting and adapting understand that and continue to be smart and properly motivated. The Citizens United decision, among others, would seem to suggest failure along those lines.

[JDPriestly]

2. K&R

Funny I was wondering this morning why I haven't heard Justice Scalia complain about our "standing army" otherwise known as our "professional" army. That was a no-no at the time the Constitution was adopted although the prohibition was soon forgotten. Still, the professional navy was OK with those who wrote the Constitution, but the standing army wasn't.

Our national life would be so much simpler, our government so much cheaper if we did not have a standing army and a standing air force. The military in our country is far too strong, far too influential and far too expensive.

[bighughdiehl]

3. They're like fundies...

One the one hand, they proclaim absolute obeisance to some document. On the other hand, they are just as selective as anyone else. Then, when an author says not to take it too literally, book of revelation,anyone? They just keep chugging on with the SELECTIVE literalism. Self proclaimed literalism is always a strangely complicated little game to disguise other agendas.

[FBaggins]

4. Can you provide a citation for that Madison quote?

When searching for it, all I see is this thread.

I'm thinking it's a poor summary of something he wrote to Spencer Roane re: M'Culloch v. Maryland... but that wasn't really his point.