Talk:Originalism

	This Law related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Crap. I appear to have written this article without having signed in.--Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:34, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Oops. Thanks Cracker.--Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Can we put Frederick Flintstone in the people section? And by "we" I, of course, mean, I, being the shorter form of me.CЯacke® <Nevermind this is gud enuf.

I like it. By the way, this is my first attempt at making what I would call an actual article. How does it measure up? What else should I have done/need to do?--Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:47, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Some wording issues. I am not familiar with the subject, but got the gist of it. I tidied up some of the more grating sentence structure. In doing so I may have gone away from your original intent, for which I apologise. However, this is a wiki, so you can always change it back, and I am not an originalist. :) --Remarcsd 19:52, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

I think it's pretty good, edgerunner, especially for a first effort. I added a little to the problems section. By the way, those guys at the end - they are "considered" to be originalists - they are fierce, outspoken originalists. Especially Bork. So I think the header could be simpler and more direct. Nice work! human^{be in} 20:55, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Link from second reference is broken

I had a look on the way back machine and couldn't see it there either. What's the process for updating links?--Barryjon (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

2A Section removed

Three points were respectively (1) predicated on a fabricated quotation - the word "standing" doesn't appear anywhere, (2) a straw man - nobody actually takes the position implied, especially as its implications would apply to the First Amendment and (3) waaaay off-mission. Frostbyte (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit article

This is literally the biggest straw man I've ever seen on this wiki and I've seen some whoppers. "The Constitution will ALWAYS require interpretation for the 21st century!" "Da evil republicans are just trying to hang onto their privilege! (not protect the Constitution from things that neither congress nor the states have ratified in the Constitution)" etc. Begege (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry your feelings are hurt, but it happens to be true. The original Framers disagreed themselves about many things. There is no one "original" interpretation. Further, they had no illusion that they could predict the future. We today have as much right to form a more perfect union as the Framers did. *drops mic* 98.211.54.119 (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ninth Amendment Section

We probably do have to explain the Originalist take on the ninth amendment, because I have only a vague idea of what the article is trying to imply. Icestar1186 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea is that this is a blank check, they think they can do whatever they want Sacrelicio (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Sacrelicio

On the contrary. According to Bork, who is held up as some originalist paragon by many conservatives, the Ninth Amendment can be dismissed as a meaningless "inkblot." The Ninth Amendment does not expressly say what the other rights may be, so we may not read any rights into that Constitution that are not expressly laid out. I realize this runs exactly counter to the text of the Ninth Amendment itself. That lack of logic, and hypocritical sham "originalism" demonstrate the problem with originalism. Incidentally, it's also a large part of why Bork's Supreme Court nomination was voted down. Bonus: When modern-day conservatives threaten to "Bork" Democratic nominees, I always reply, "You mean give the nominee a hearing and an up-or-down vote? Go right ahead." Of course, that's what actually happened to Bork, but that's not at all what they mean. Idiocy abounds.98.211.54.119 (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is a rant

There is no other definition. I'm a Brazilian lawyer, by the way - if my credentials count for something (PE040821). Originalism is endemic in the United States because it is a doctrine shaped by its constitutional system. But there are, to a large extent in the Western World, very close hermeneutical traditions and even directly inspired by American originalism. You got the prowess of politicize hermeneutics. Ridiculous and anti-scientific thing, if you ask me. Here in Brazil, some of our main constitutionalists, Gilmar Mendes and Lênio Streck, follow lines very close to US originalism (of course, according to our context) - and they are at opposite poles of the political spectrum. Is there anything stupider to politicize knowledge? ^{— Unsigned, by: 177.183.207.6 / talk / contribs}