U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational

[j2k4]

J2K4
Do you read lewrockwell.com?

No, never have; I see (having just looked) how you might think that I did-maybe now I shall, if I find time.

[Rat Faced]

J2K4
Did you read Mein Kampf?

[j2k4]

J2K4
Did you read Mein Kampf?

And your implication would be?

I've read such excerpts as exist to be easily found.

I've often wondered how difficult it would be to find an original translation-what I have read is utter madness, and nonsensical into the bargain.

There was also a sequel that was never published.

I've got lots of Hitler reading under my belt.

[Agrajag]

Let's not attribute the contents of diaries or debates to the document as finally written, where an Amendment would more easily & properly suffice.

In the UK we do precisely the opposite. A daily note of all debates (in parliament) is kept. These are known as the Hansard Notes (or something similar). In order to understand and interpret an Act of Parliament these must also be considered. The logic is, the only way to really understand what the legislators intended (which is the important thing) one must read the debates which led to the finished document and not just the document itself.

[Skweeky1]

Then again, in the UK you have a house of Lords with only lords in it...

Talking about medieval...

[Mr JP Fugley]

Then again, in the UK you have a house of Lords with only lords in it...

Talking about medieval...

I agree and would get rid of it and would replace it with an elected upper house.

However to be entirely clear on it, it's not all hereditary peers. There are Life Peers who sit in the House and the seat does not pass on when they die. This is often former members, selected by their party to sit in the upper house. The Law Lords (the highest Court of appeal in the UK) are also life peers and most strangely Lord Bishops (who are Bishops in the Church of England).

Like I said, I would do away with it as I think it is an anachronism. I would replace it with an elected upper house.

[j2k4]

Let's not attribute the contents of diaries or debates to the document as finally written, where an Amendment would more easily & properly suffice.

In the UK we do precisely the opposite. A daily note of all debates (in parliament) is kept. These are known as the Hansard Notes (or something similar). In order to understand and interpret an Act of Parliament these must also be considered. The logic is, the only way to really understand what the legislators intended (which is the important thing) one must read the debates which led to the finished document and not just the document itself.

This is one of the things which sets Founding Brothers apart from other books; it's content is the result of the author's research, of course, but also the interpersonal and other correspondence of the participants, all of which is considered against the backdrop of such events, perceptions and political pressures as existed during that period in U.S. history, and most definitely not through the prism of any present-day perspective or ideology.

It is quite a book.

BTW-

Hello to you, Skweeky.

[Skweeky1]

Hello Kev!

I would post more if I had any clue about current politics. However, I think it's all rather boring so instead of looking like a twat commenting on things I don't know anything about I'll just stick to what I do know

[Mr JP Fugley]

In the UK we do precisely the opposite. A daily note of all debates (in parliament) is kept. These are known as the Hansard Notes (or something similar). In order to understand and interpret an Act of Parliament these must also be considered. The logic is, the only way to really understand what the legislators intended (which is the important thing) one must read the debates which led to the finished document and not just the document itself.

This is one of the things which sets Founding Brothers apart from other books; it's content is the result of the author's research, of course, but also the interpersonal and other correspondence of the participants, all of which is considered against the backdrop of such events, perceptions and political pressures as existed during that period in U.S. history, and most definitely not through the prism of any present-day perspective or ideology.

It is quite a book.

BTW-

Hello to you, Skweeky.

Surely to look at any document, particularly the one on which your nation is based, outwith it's historical context, is to miss the point. That's also why these things must change, to meet the needs of the time.

As such, to take a wholly modern subject and try to rule on it, based on the original intent is ultimately futile. Indeed it would appear to me that it goes against the original intent, given that the Founding Fathers wrote the original to deal with the issues alive at the time. Militias, standing armies, foreign rulers and so forth.

[j2k4]

This is one of the things which sets Founding Brothers apart from other books; it's content is the result of the author's research, of course, but also the interpersonal and other correspondence of the participants, all of which is considered against the backdrop of such events, perceptions and political pressures as existed during that period in U.S. history, and most definitely not through the prism of any present-day perspective or ideology.

It is quite a book.

BTW-

Hello to you, Skweeky.

Surely to look at any document, particularly the one on which your nation is based, outwith it's historical context, is to miss the point. That's also why these things must change, to meet the needs of the time.

As such, to take a wholly modern subject and try to rule on it, based on the original intent is ultimately futile. Indeed it would appear to me that it goes against the original intent, given that the Founding Fathers wrote the original to deal with the issues alive at the time. Militias, standing armies, foreign rulers and so forth.

I was speaking specifically with regard to the issue of slavery.

As to the idea of "original intent", how do you feel about it as it relates to state's rights?