Instigator / Pro
4
1527
rating
8
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#1979

Originalism is not the best form of Constitutional interpretation.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Fruit_Inspector
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1632
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Description

The US constitution can be interpreted in a few ways. Originalism defined as:

The interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified.

Best defined as:

Superior to all alternatives.

BOP. Con must prove Originalism is the best form of interpretation.

I think the recent Supreme Court case proves my point about how Pragmatic interpretation gives the court the ability to legislate free of the congressional process. Attempts to pass legislation like the Equality Act have failed repeatedly in Congress, showing that both sides feel including gender and sexual orientation were not intended to be read into the word 'sex'. However, the Supreme Court has decided that cultural trends allow them to change the law (legislate) without going through the proper channels. If anyone is pleased because the Equality Act was basically codified into law without congressional approval, remember the Court can just as easily legislate -- I mean "interpret" -- laws you don't agree with too.

I will expand when the debate is over. I do not want to have a side debate in the comments.

Feel free to open a new debate a purely textual analysis of the constitution is pragmatic. I will take that on any day.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

Just not pragmatic? Why? Just because it happens to be composed 230 years ago and not 30 years ago, or 3 years ago? Well, my friend, there's a different Constitution composed 2,000 years ago which, as a code of conduct, as a document of rights and privileges, and even as a political platform, let alone a document of proper morality, exceeds theConstitution of the United States, as lofty, and relevant a composed set of words that most mysterious of American documents is. It is called the Sermon on the Mount. That document, if followed and lived by as faithfully as some follow the original intent of the Constitution, wold solve every single social ill we suffer today, and will evert suffer into the distant future ahead, just as written originally. It does not even need amendment.
The SOM even exceeds the universal concepts, which it is, itself, the composition of the 10 commandments some 3,500 years ago. Not pragmatic? You'd best look that one up. Use the OED as I suggest.

-->
@fauxlaw

I will retort after the debate is done. It is my belief that it is just not pragmatic to take be tied to a textualist view of 230 years ago. But you will see that in my debate.

I'll just say this: There's a reason why my preferred dictionary, the OED, holds that personal distinction. It is the most complete of any English dictionary in the volume of the words it defines; virtually the entire authorized lexicon. Moreover, it is fully 20 volumes in print because it includes an exhaustive etymology of words defined going back to each word's first historic use. That is invaluable for understanding 18th century syntax, when the Constitution was written. By such etymology, the scope of which all other English dictionaries lack, the Constitution is well understood in time and context. It is not a matter of random interpretation, as Pro suggests. Of course, use an inferior dictionary, you yield random results. That's the fault of the interpreter, not the composer. Therefore, the text is not "open-ended."

dumb. All BOP is not on con. BoP is shared here equally and even if BOP were on con skipping the first round is a strategic error

Reminds me of that horrible article that they published in the atlantic