I believe this is what you meant, but were being too polite to say.

He hasn't and doesn't either, respectively.

A quick google search of that quote along with "Trump" reveals I'm not the only one who thinks this.

I am serious and that's why I said start with those. Although I haven't read the federalist or anti-federalist papers I think that's a clear direction to follow if one is interested in the then contemporary debate. As far as rulings I like Men in Black by Mark Levin and the cases he references would be interesting rulings to read. And, yes, the constitution should be interpreted as close to literally as possible and the legal system really should have little to do with that matter but of course it does now and that isn't a power explicitly granted in the constitution either.

Should the bible be interpreted literally (and completely without context) too?

How French of you.

Yes it should; common law systems always invest the power of legal interpretation with the judiciary.

It always did.

Yes it is: Article 3, Section 2. Or as Alexander Hamilton put it,

“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”

Yes to ascertain its meaning but not change it through "interpretation" nor the concept of a judicial veto.

I guess Wookie06 must have quantum phase shifted from a universe where America wasn’t settled by the British. Either that or he’s never bothered to learn the judicial system of pre-revolutionary America before making up his mind about what “judicial power” means. I’m sure it’s the former.

Do you think Mark Levin, given his background and association with strongly conservative media, might be in any way biased in his presentation of the history of the Supreme Court?

How do you cope with the fact that originalism is a recent invention and wasn't what the founding fathers originally intended?

Fair enough for me I guess (so long as we're still talking about the bible or making biblical analogies).

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about Saint Peter?

My favorite example is the first amendment. It specifically limits congress yet the supreme court decided that it was amended through "incorporation" by the fourteenth amendment, which would have been terribly sloppy if that's what the authors intended the fourteenth amendment to do and, of course, it wasn't.

Does one need to be a scholar of Jewish and Roman history to understand the bible?

*judicial review.

And yes, the framers did intend for judicial review.

I'm trying not to be rude to people who disagree with me; that is correct.



Your comment that we should understand the debates about the constitution are very important. When the French wrote the Declaration of the Rights of the Man in 1789, they were faced with a big problem of how to actually contextualize the ideas. It turned out that declarations such as "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good." are pretty much impossible to implement without additional knowledge and societal context. Some dialectic needs to be had to understand which social distinctions, and to get some approximation of what we think is generally good, and how you understand and plan to enforce rights.

So when you're reading the Declaration of Independence, for instance, there are lines such as:



I don't see this as all too different from the declarations of the many failed French constitutions. These are nice sounding declarations, but hold little meaning without understanding context.

I think conservatives tend to see socialists and communists as evildoers who need to be stopped. If communists truly believe capitalist systems destroy life, liberty and the ability to seek happiness, and are not derived from the consent of the governed, is it not their right to proverbially storm the Bastille and put in a new government? I don't think Wookie would prefer this reading, but without context the Declaration of Independence doesn't exclude it.

Context is key.

I effectively consider Paul a heretic in my mind, and think his teachings deviate from what Christ meant. But that's my interpretation, and one that most Christians do not share.

I think it's incredibly stupid to believe that the framers never intended for the constitution to be applied as written but it was also a starting point and full of compromises to get it ratified. The document wasn't perfect but it laid out the best system man has ever agreed enough upon to design. If originalism is a recent concept it's only because it needs to be. As far as the Levin book, it's more a case by case analysis and the arguments he presents are clear so if you end up disagreeing with the conclusions that's fine. It's not a history book and it's also highly readable unlike most of his other books that are much more complexly written.

The authors intended the constitution to change. An inflexible constitution is not what was originally intended.



No, but it would help clear up many of the awful interpretations Christian evangelicals give to the Bible.

Analogy: liberal supreme court interpretations of the constitution are to Islamic interpretation of the New Testament, as "originalist" interpretation of the constitution are to Christian interpretation of the New Testament

It all makes sense now. Who is this guy, and what is he doing to our constitution with all this Harvard Law school crap??

No, I don't mean judicial review. I'm not talking about judicial review, which is a related but separate argument. The supreme court, and lower courts, effectively have a judicial veto.

False. The perfect document was carved into slabs of stone by Moses. The rest is in red.



I don't doubt that he's a clear writer and presents a convincing narrative. If he goes case by case, how can you be sure he isn't skipping over other cases which would confound his point? I looked up reviews and this argument was presented against his work.

Obviously but that has no bearing on my point.

Okay, don't read it if you don't want to. Perfectly alright by me.

Most conservative authors I've seen write about the Supreme Court hold the same theses: some argument that original intent is all that matters (it's not), reframing early 20th century conservative court decisions as originally intended (which they were not), and decrying the 1930's changes as unconstitutional (they weren't, but they gave workers rights so they're bad). It's an argument that basically says: all that matters is what was originally intended. And it just so happens that what was originally intended is everything conservatives want. Here's my proof, it's a passionate conservative's screed cherrypicking cases to conclude he's correct.

Maybe you could explain again what the issue was? I don't see why the Supreme Court's ruling on the meaning of the fourteenth was an overstep.

Do you read any material on the history of the Supreme Court from scholars with less overt bias? I'd find your perspective more convincing if it was sourced from a less partisan person.

Nevermind that the Supreme Court in the 1930's was conservative. This joke might be misinterpreted, you know.

Most Christians seem to think so, they pay someone who learned those things at seminary to teach them how to be Christian.

You can believe whatever you want, but America doesn't have a civil law system. Not today, not before the Civil War, not before the Revolution. No matter how long you plug your ears and stamp your feet, it never happened. If you actually cared about what the founding fathers believed you'd pay attention to what they said, instead of stubbornly insisting what you imagine they wanted with no evidence or good faith intention to persuade others.

lol

That's what judicial review means.

Do most Christian teachers in North America go to seminary? I always thought of that as more of a strict Lutheran or Catholic thing.

Might be. That would explain a lot.

This reminds me of a thing which happened. I went to a Christian thing here and met some people. One of the guys I met (who I think was organizing the event I went to) was doing graduate work studying older texts, I think it might have been on the Greek parts of the New Testament. Can't remember exactly. I mentioned something about how it must be interesting to have debates about how to interpret the texts. Since we can never know what was really meant in every last sentence outside of approximations, it's an endless source of interesting debates to weed out which exacting interpretations are likely.

I was met with something between the look of a death stare and the face of an exorcist seeing someone possessed. They were apparently really made uncomfortable that I could suggest interpreting Jesus or other parts of the New Testament wasn't an exact science. Something which seemed really obvious to me was apparently in conflict with a dogmatic persistence in an idea.

I feel much the same is true of how conservatives engage with constitutional debates.

It would, right? For as much as I disagree with Catholic theology, at least Catholicism seems to be philosophically honest enough to recognize the value and truth of scientific endeavor. There are many good Christian sects in America too. I think there's also a tradition of Christian teaching which is not backed by serious scholarly effort, but by ad hoc reading and interpretation of various passages. Basically all of the negatives feared by common interpretation of the Bible happen there. The negatives of the Luther Bible.

American individualism doesn't just mean being free to do whatever you want, it also means believing whatever you want. That's why Fox News conveniently presents both sides of every argument (e.g., those given by a climate scientist on the one hand, and an oilman on the other).

(Isaac Asimov said it already.)

Because the fourteenth amendment did not amend the first amendment. The court simply chose to do it on their own.

[I started a longish blog-like post here but I'll do that in another thread at another time. I'm just going to dip back out of this thread because I really don't enjoy the back and forth like I did a decade ago. God we've been doing this for a long time!]

But the thing is, "knowledge is power", and liberals are oh-so knowledge / power hungry, and they'll stop at nothing, pulling at the very fabric of life until there's nothing left but a thread.

They want nothing but nothingness! Nothingness without end! I mean, say what you will about the tenants of MAGA, at least it's an ethos.

I think I know of another ideology that had its own "interpretation" of Christianity (which, bafflingly, seems to be gaining popularity among a certain type of young person in America).

God win dammit...

And with that lack of critical thought, there's enough leeway to fly a Hindenburg through.

From the person who posted that video:



You led me into a den of lions Youtube Nazis, Jones!

It's a reply to the post by "NordicWarrior" who's really angry the movie portrays Jews as victims of antisemitism.

The kinds of profiles Youtube Nazis come up with, man. We have "Broadsword Calling" with a Wehrmacht soldier as his icon calling Jews the real antisemites. Some guy with a National Socialist Canadian flag and the name "Official Narrative" talking about Jews masturbating into potted plants. Some guy named "Void Divided by Zero" (no doubt a black piller) who has a problem with Jews saying black people are human.

It would be really funny if it wasn't so unnerving. And a little depressing.