The Originalism Trap: Extremism and the Constitution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ส.ค. 2024
- Join Madiba K. Dennie, Melissa Murray, in conversation with Elie Mystal on Dennie’s The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back. Jennifer Weiss-Wolf of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Network will give opening remarks. This event will explore originalism’s controversial hold on constitutional interpretation, revealing its flaws and advocating for an inclusive constitutionalism that upholds equal rights for all. Dennie’s work blends scholarship with wit, offering a vital guide for understanding and reclaiming the Constitution in today’s political climate. Don’t miss this insightful discussion on the future of our democracy.
This program is part of the Newmark Civic Life Series, known for conversations with leading experts exploring pro-democracy efforts at this critical moment in the US and around the world, supported by Craig Newmark Philanthropies. - บันเทิง
To me, the most blatantly obvious argument against originalism is the actual text of the United States Constitution that provides mechanisms for amendment and replacement. #RepublicansLie
Yes. The Constitution allows and is designed for progress as humanity evolves and progresses in knowledge, understanding, Science, technological advances, environmental changes, etc.
It’s a living document, striving to become a true plurality.
is this our duh? moment?
Awesome!!!! Excellent panel.
I really enjoyed and appreciate this conversation. This really helped me understand some of the decisions that court has made. ‘The Originalism Trap’ is now on my reading list!
Melissa, Heather Cox Richardson says the same thing about how we were founded and what we have become. Great discussion all of you! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
These are wonderful comments on originalism - that no one has thought of before.
Great conversation!
Thank you for this clearly reasoned discussion. I have always felt orginalism was a dangerous and flawed concept.
👏🏽Dope👏🏽
Appreciate the work U do & the knowledge ya'll confer
💯Gracias💯
Im a 55 year old black man from GA. I love the Heller/Bruen decisions. I have 4 non violent felonies that i didn't commit and yall don't want me to have 2nd amendment rights. Amendment rights. Gun control was used against us and ya'll are ok with that continuing with that.
No "Originalist" is a "Textualist." Originalists look at the history and tradition in place at the time of the drafting of the Constitution to glean some "meaning" to the text. So, they find the "meaning" by first looking at the history and tradition. The words then "mean" something other than what the words say. The question we're to ask is" How would the "voters" have understood what the text meant?
So, with that in mind, the "No Religious Test Clause" means there is to be no religious test. At least that's what it appears to say. But is that how the "voters" would have understood it? Would "white, anglo-saxon, protestant, men, who owned property including black people" have understood that Clause to have allowed a black catholic to be a member of the Supreme Court? Any catholic for that matter? So the No Religious Text Clause, per Originalists, bars Catholics from serving on the Supreme Court. It's their logic.
Same with the so-called "Free Exercise Clause." Would any "voter" have given Constitutional protection to any catholic? Clearly, not. Ever hear of Henry VIII and Martin Luther? If there's a religious basis of the government, and Originalists believe there is while the text says otherwise, then it's Church of England/Protestant/anti-catholic.
I'd like to see a state like Maryland re-criminalize the practice of catholicism and then run that issue up the flagpole. There were lots of laws criminalizing catholicism in place at the time of the founding of our contury. More laws criminalizing catholicism than abortion. Catholics couldn't vote either, come to think about it. I suspect the catholics on the Supreme Court would abandon their Originalist approach to understanding the Constitution in cases where their own interests were at stake.
Do yall think most black men are in support of gun control? Im a black man and i don't think so.
I understand the historical significance and context. I truly do. But may I ask you this?
Do we truly need weapons of war on the streets, in our schools, our neighborhood grocery stores, our spaces of worship, or anywhere that isn’t a clarified “war zone”? Do we need easy availability for gun purchases? Without adequate background checks? Or proper safety measures?
Guns kill more children than anything else in this country.
No one wants to take away all of the guns. However, when there was a ban (in the 1990’s) of AR-15 type weaponry, there were fewer gun deaths from those weapons. It worked.
Machine guns are still illegal (from 1930’s legislation/crime); but “bump stocks” that turn guns into machine guns, are now illogically legal. By this illogical corrupt court.
*It’s seems as if the Court, and its dark monied forces and sources, want us to fight each other. Whether over a falsely reported “stolen” election, or for looking different, or loving someone, or trying to vote…or perhaps, over basic needs…
Total anarchy.*
@@babetteshaw it's too late. There are already millions of assault rifles out there already. You can't put toothpaste back I. The tube. They are in common use already. I suggest you get one.
@babetteshaw another problem with the gun controllers is that they never stop. They always push further later. They will bane everything if we let them.
"Originalism" is intellectually infantile.
There is no originalism trap. The Constitution includes procedures to amend it (that is, the Constitution). To make proper amendments, it is necessary to use the actual meaning of the words as they were written at the time. Words in the Constitution as of 1789 are to be understood today (2024 AD) what said words were in 1789. Words in the Amendments written in, say, 1910 are to be understood today (2024 AD) what said words were in 1910. That is originalism. It is rational. It is simple. It is not brain surgery.
Making proper Amendments to the Constitution takes a lot of effort. Those opposed to originalism are just lazy.
In theory, since Originalism is an apartisan interpretation, its application should frustrate leftists roughly an equal amount of the time as rightists. So why is it that it keeps arriving at these highly conservative opinions? An Originalist interpretation of Dobbs v Jackson could hold that while a right to privacy as it applies to an abortion might not be able to be interpreted out of the text of the 14th Amendment, it is to be interpreted out of founding ideas of personhood, out of a combination of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and therefore, the 9th Amendments. The biggest problem with Originalism is that political actors intentionally twist original meaning and intention to suit their own partisan desires, thus defeating the whole intent behind the legal approach.
@@Silverhawk100 The right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted several amendments to imply a right to privacy. Key word: "IMPLY" thus introducing SUBJECTIVITY into the discussion. And a right to privacy is not a right to Abortion. Abortion was discussed in the 1700's and abortion was practiced since the beginning of humanity. However Abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution because in 1789 it was not considered a right central to Federal Government. In the 1700's the colonists had issues of unreasonable searches by the British so the 4th Amendment relates to unreasonable searches and in no way is unreasonable searches related to Abortion.
You are just lazy. Campaign to add an Amendment to the Federal Constitution to promote Abortion. The 9th Amendment allow State Constitutions to promote Abortion.
@@Friedfish-zm7fx the word slavery wasn't used at the founding in the constitution either, yet the founders supported it... it took a civil war to get the document a little correct.
@@fullhse06 Incorrect. Slavery is mentioned in the original US Constitution, though not explicitly by the word "slavery." Key references:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (Three-Fifths Compromise),
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 (Importation of Slaves),
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 (Fugitive Slave Clause).
You seem clueless about Originalism. The original authors of the US Constitution allowed Amendments of the Constitution. Understand the original authors of the US Constitution with the meaning of the words as used in 1789. The meaning of "Amendment" in 1789 is the same in 2024. The original authors of the US Constitution did not put in a "Abolish Slavery!!" clause. Boo Hoo. Do not be lazy. Go amend the Constitution. So the Civil War happened. And there is a 13th Amendment to the Constitution.