 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
|
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
| |
|
|
|
|
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. |
|
|
|
 |
Originalism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
[edit] This makes no sense...
- Originalists often argue that where a constitution is silent, judges should not "read rights into" it. Rights implicating abortion, sex and sexual orientation equality, and capital punishment are often thus described as issues that the Constitution does not speak to, and hence should not be recognized by the judiciary. Yet, the Ninth Amendment, provides that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Original intent thus calls for just the opposite of what the text of the Constitution and "original intent" of the founders arguably affirm, creating an inconsistency in the practice of at least one branch of Originalism. The subsequent Tenth Amendment, detailing non-enumerated rights as the sole property of the states and the people, is often cited as the clarification for this inconsistency and the reason why the federal courts have no say in affirming or denying said rights per the Ninth Amendment.
This makes no sense at all, originalists saying that "judges should not read rights into" the amenments and that "the Constitution does not speak to, and hence should not be recognized by the judiciary" has no bearing on the ninth amendment. This appears to be a misunderstanding of Originalism, it is entirely accurate to state that abortion is not spoken of in the constitution and that the judiciary should not recognize it. Citing the ninth amendment in this manner shows bad interpretation of that amendment and why it was passed in the first place. It is not meant to extend new rights, infact it says as much in its text "others retained by the people" not other rights claimed by the people, ie. new rights. The ninth was passed so that the federal government would not be able to claim authrity over anything that was not explicitly named as forbiden to it by one of the amendments, it ensured that the bill of rights was not read as "the federal government my do anything except these few things." and was instead understood to be just a specific list of essential rights, but that other less essential rights existed or could be created by legilation. thats how an originalist reads it because thats why James madison wrote it. Smitty1337 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's because the Federalists consider the BoR an appeasement to the Anti-Federalists arguments in the state conventions, and that it goes without saying that rights exist and that Congress only had the powers specifically enumerated. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict
"Originalism is a theory of interpretation, not construction"
Construction is the noun form of the verb "to construe"; to infer a meaning from. Interpretation is.. mirabile visu: the exact same thing. So, cited or not, this sentence -- on which the entire section, if not the entire article, seems to hang -- is inherently self-contradictory. --baylink@en.w —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.90.32 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Originalism is not conservatism
I find the premise in this section somewhat ridiculous. Since when do conservatives not believe in what this section says? Who says conservatives are against change? It's all about how the change is made. The section should be rewritten or deleted. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree from what I have seen of the views on the court not all conservatives believe this and should be noted accordingly.
[edit] expanding sources used in this article
We should pay attention to some sources that have not be used. Especially from groups like the American Constitutional Society for example. While they disagree with Orginalism, their insight would be useful for section on this page for criticism this particular view point has received. In particular a book written by two of it members call Keeping Faith with the Constitution http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/ACS_KeepFaith_FNL.pdf Pages 9 & 10 briefly talk about some of their criticism of the Orginalist views on the constitution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughingman543 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
