• bedrooms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning

    In no way I’d like to help Trump, but you US guys really should NOT re-re-interpret laws suddenly as they were intended 200 years ago.

    • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      When you’ve got an outdated document as the backbone of your whole legal system, you kinda have to re-re-interpret everything, no matter what. Originalists tend to be pretty conservative, it’s just a method of thinking that allows conservative lawyers/judges/legal people to slap some legitimacy onto their interpretations. It’s an alternative to the modern (centrist) interpretation of law in the US, which has in recent years allowed for things like gay marriage. However the flavor of conservatism is very “traditional” compared to the modern alt-right, meaning they are also often anti-trump.

      • upstream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine if we made new laws that evolved with the time and retired old laws that are clearly anachronistic?

        If instead of interpreting and discussing unclear text the legislators just said “we believe this is wrong, and thus - now we change it”.

        • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the job of Congress.

          But the Supreme Court can also down those laws too. That was what conservatives attempted with the Affordable Care Act .

          • upstream@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sorry if I was unclear; I was trying to say “imagine if you had a system that worked” 🫣

            And I don’t mean that in any negative way, other than to say that the current system is visibly broken.

        • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is technically what the amendments are, but it’s so much harder to push an amendment through congress than it is to just argue that the constitution already agrees with what you want to happen

    • dhork@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Especially since the “originalists” are being quite disingenuous. They’ve wanted for quite a while to start a new Constitutional Convention to rewrite the thing from scratch. They don’t really respect the founders as much as we think they do. They want to become the new founders, and force their great-great-grandchidren into boxes they make.

      • bedrooms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed, and if they re-interpret the Constitution completely from the original meanings you might even revive slavery. Well, surely they can’t, and that shows how arbitrary the originalist position is.