395:
much so as protected. Liberals, socialists and progressive
Democrats have viewed these rights as the single greatest obstacle to their goals as socialism and individual liberty cannot coexist,,, thus the origin of the "living document" argument amongst other assaults on the integrity of the founding documents. It was Madison that is quoted as alluding to the fact that the greatest threat to our liberty would come from within as opposed to without, meaning he has foreseen the enemy and he is us, or our own government. Our constitution was and is to protect the individual from the masses or democracy, a system that has been shown to be as great a failure in the long run as socialism. The American Constitutional Republic is an idea unique in human history and the most successful. Long live the republic!! Down with democracy. Good a battle cry as any. Brief but to the point
178:
22:
80:
53:
90:
394:
Fortunately the founding fathers left volumes as to their thinking and reasoning behind every word, sentence and passage within the constitution and it is very clear that individual rights are the possession of the individual,,, as apposed to the group,, and are not granted by the constitution so
282:
I feel that it is extremely important to differentiate
Originalism from Original intent, and that this is best served by the existence of a separate article to address intentionalism. There is an extremely prevalent movement to conflate original intent with originalism, I think because there are
214:
article, and would like to get some comments on what, if any, differences there are between the two concepts. I think they are somewhat distinct, as purposive theory is related to purpose while an intentionalist theory is related to intent, which can overlap, but not always. Any thoughts? -
249:
Lack of citations, self referencing citations. PoV: Many additions, no arguments -for- Original Intent. It is true that this can be remedied by people adding these arguments, but it does not speak to good intent that you did not prefer to present both sides of the
291:, but virtually all originalists ctegorically reject original intent's premise) This is like arguing that sport is dumb because no grown adult should find gainfull employment hitting balls with bats; it rests on the assumption that "sport" is a synomym for
327:
of the "high profile" originalists - Scalia, Thomas, Bork, Barnett, Lasch and so on - explicitly reject intentionalism, and have done so for well over two decades. Yet still the false conflation persists, and if
Knowledge is to remain fact-based, it
283:
many, many valid criticisms of original intent which do not hold true against other originalist theories, but can be made to stick if the two can be conflated (for example, the traditional exhoration that originalism is opposed to
443:
448:
438:
185:
63:
111:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
433:
148:
138:
428:
113:
351:
375:
402:
267:
103:
58:
239:
It would be great if someone would add in a section on arguments for origional intent in opposed to a living constitution.
33:
355:
252:
You have good arguments; I would prefer to see them backed up than remove them, hence this advance warning.
379:
406:
21:
263:
39:
398:
371:
347:
255:
223:
95:
344:
If Scalia is in opposition to original intent why does the article cite him as a supporter?
259:
211:
333:
177:
422:
216:
108:
85:
300:
292:
410:
383:
359:
336:
271:
229:
304:
296:
107:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
323:. Likewise, almost no serious originalists are intentionalists, and
79:
52:
15:
176:
287:, which is nonsensical: intentionalism might well reject
444:
Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
449:
Social and political philosophy task force articles
439:
Stub-Class social and political philosophy articles
159:
8:
278:Why this article is necessary and important
396:
156:
47:
19:
332:find ways to break this fiction, IMHO.
210:I have just significantly expanded the
49:
117:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
7:
206:Original intent vs. purposive theory
101:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
434:Low-importance Philosophy articles
416:What complete and utter nonsense.
14:
235:need support for original intent
123:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
88:
78:
51:
20:
186:Social and political philosophy
143:This article has been rated as
126:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
429:Stub-Class Philosophy articles
1:
411:06:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
337:19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
230:17:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
360:09:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
272:23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
247:Re: Originalist Criticisms:
465:
149:project's importance scale
384:21:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
184:
155:
142:
73:
46:
160:Associated task forces:
181:
104:WikiProject Philosophy
28:This article is rated
180:
307:constitute not only
64:Social and political
311:sports, not even a
129:Philosophy articles
182:
114:general discussion
34:content assessment
413:
401:comment added by
374:comment added by
350:comment added by
274:
258:comment added by
203:
202:
199:
198:
195:
194:
191:
190:
96:Philosophy portal
456:
386:
362:
253:
226:
219:
212:purposive theory
167:
157:
131:
130:
127:
124:
121:
98:
93:
92:
91:
82:
75:
74:
69:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
464:
463:
459:
458:
457:
455:
454:
453:
419:
418:
392:
390:Etched in stone
369:
345:
315:if sports, but
280:
245:
243:Imminent change
237:
224:
217:
208:
165:
128:
125:
122:
119:
118:
94:
89:
87:
67:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
462:
460:
452:
451:
446:
441:
436:
431:
421:
420:
391:
388:
368:this is dumb
366:
365:
364:
363:
285:Brown v. Board
279:
276:
251:
248:
244:
241:
236:
233:
207:
204:
201:
200:
197:
196:
193:
192:
189:
188:
183:
173:
172:
170:
168:
162:
161:
153:
152:
145:Low-importance
141:
135:
134:
132:
100:
99:
83:
71:
70:
68:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
461:
450:
447:
445:
442:
440:
437:
435:
432:
430:
427:
426:
424:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
389:
387:
385:
381:
377:
373:
361:
357:
353:
352:68.222.92.252
349:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
335:
331:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
277:
275:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
242:
240:
234:
232:
231:
228:
227:
220:
213:
205:
187:
179:
175:
174:
171:
169:
164:
163:
158:
154:
150:
146:
140:
137:
136:
133:
116:
115:
110:
106:
105:
97:
86:
84:
81:
77:
76:
72:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
415:
397:— Preceding
393:
376:69.108.163.5
367:
329:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
288:
284:
281:
246:
238:
222:
209:
144:
112:
102:
40:WikiProjects
403:69.131.4.55
370:—Preceding
346:—Preceding
299:, and that
260:Anarchangel
254:—Preceding
423:Categories
334:Simon Dodd
120:Philosophy
109:philosophy
59:Philosophy
30:Stub-class
250:argument.
399:unsigned
372:unsigned
348:unsigned
313:majority
301:baseball
293:baseball
268:contribs
256:unsigned
319:sport,
305:cricket
297:cricket
218:Jersyko
147:on the
321:per se
36:scale.
289:Brown
407:talk
380:talk
356:talk
330:must
309:some
303:and
295:and
264:talk
225:talk
325:all
317:all
139:Low
425::
409:)
382:)
358:)
270:)
266:•
166:/
62::
405:(
378:(
354:(
262:(
221:·
151:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
