Class Warfare Blog

July 18, 2016

Original Intent, My Ass

There are many in our society who feel the Constitution should only be interpreted with regard to the “original intent” of the Framers of the Constitution. Most notably the recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the entire Southern Baptist Convention of the U.S. are of this ilk.

This choice of a “guide” is merely an exercise in blowing smoke into the eyes of the American public, by claiming a source of knowledge to which they are not privy. It is beyond us, so “move along now, nothing to see here.” Then those people can make up anything they choose to represent the actual intent of the Framers.

I have just started reading “Genius of the People: The Making of the Constitution” by Charles L. Mee Jr., who states in the prologue to his book regarding the various ways of interpreting who the Framers were and why they did what they did:

Even so, in the end, these schools of interpretation fail to convince in one common respect: they all tend to simplify the particularities in search of generalizations – and, in the process, miss the essence of what occurred at the convention. They all come down to a view that the framers of the constitution belonged more or less to one class, and they had more or less one common set of intentions – or one set of biases or goals or interests – and that their labors in the summer of 1787 can be seen as the careful codifying of that set of common intentions into a body of laws.

And yet, when one actually looks at the day-to-day debates during that hot, humid, insect-ridden summer in Philadelphia, such a view simply won’t hold up. Far from there being one set of intentions, there were as many intentions as there were framers. What one sees, in fact, is a group of men who, despite their common background and broad class interests, had myriad diverging appetites, ideals, and interests. They set about disputing with one another, wrangling, losing patience, lashing out, attacking one another, accusing one another of ignorance and inconsistency, or worse, of lack of principle and even of treasonous intent; erupting in anger or simply packing up and leaving town altogether, never to return; warning that certain provisions only could lead eventually to civil war or bring down upon the country some even more calamitous judgment of heaven. By the end of the convention, none of the delegates, not one, was entirely happy with the constitution they had written. Some refused entirely to sign the completed work, and those who did sign signed in varying degrees of reluctance, dismay, anguish, and disgust.”

The key sentence is the last one.

 “By the end of the convention, none of the delegates, not one, was entirely happy with the constitution they had written. Some refused entirely to sign the completed work, and those who did sign signed in varying degrees of reluctance, dismay, anguish, and disgust.”

The Framers had a message for us and a clear one. What they did, as opposed to what they wanted to do, was to compromise, compromise to the point that some thought they had failed, compromise to the point of quitting.

And what is it the advocates of “original intent” want least of all? What is it that conservatives think is treasonous?

Compromise.

The next time I heard someone claiming to being guided by “original intent,” I will reach for my wallet to make sure it is secure and sincerely request the speaker take his original intent and shove it up his ass.

Advertisements

8 Comments »

  1. I’m keeping that passage

    Like

    Comment by john zande — July 18, 2016 @ 10:51 am | Reply

    • I just started the book, but I have read enough about the Constitutional Convention that it rang true. And the wrangling back and forth regard the various special interests and property rights, etc. was fierce and could only be address with compromises and trade offs, etc.

      So, there is no such thing as “original intent” other than “compromise is the art of the possible” and “they didn’t want to die our hands to their intent, hence the ability for future generations to amend the Constitution (and re-amend in the case of prohibition).

      Steve

      PS Olympics got you excited mate? You wanna come stay with us until it all blows over?

      On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 18, 2016 @ 10:58 am | Reply

      • Ha. We’re safe down here. Torch run, though, will be passing not far from my house pretty soon. I might take down a bucket of something horrible and throw it from the bridge 🙂

        Like

        Comment by john zande — July 18, 2016 @ 11:04 am | Reply

        • Sounds better than hanging your arse over the railing and firing away.

          Take care my friend, and ware the mosquitoes.

          ;o)

          On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

          >

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Steve Ruis — July 18, 2016 @ 11:15 am | Reply

  2. Compromise has always been the key to human satisfaction I think. In all areas of life. It is those who are unwilling to find compromise, or an agreeable place somewhere in the middle that make up our current R party. They want it all and they want it now. Maybe they should call JG Wentworth.

    A functiong government must find compromise or stagnate. Our gov’t went stagnant the day Obama got elected. Refusal to compromise.

    Did you see the attempt to unseat tRump from his nomination? It came fairly close to being pulled off…

    Like

    Comment by shelldigger — July 18, 2016 @ 4:57 pm | Reply

    • I was busy ignoring it. They actually tried, though? Interesting.

      On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 18, 2016 @ 10:09 pm | Reply

  3. Speaking of the “original intent”, at least half the time people who talk about it mean one of the 10 amendments (usually 1st, 2nd, or 10th), but since the Bill of Rights was ratified several years after the Constitution was, I’m not sure these amendments should count as “original intent”.
    On the other hand, the “original intent” of the actual Constitution legalized slavery, among other things.

    Like

    Comment by List of X — July 18, 2016 @ 10:38 pm | Reply

    • … and a property requirement to vote and … women as second-class citizens and … they wanted no part of a standing army and …

      On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — July 19, 2016 @ 8:37 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: