patrickaa317 wrote:So this brings up a valid question for the constitutional scholar (Woodruff). Was the initial intention of the founders (that wrote the constitution), for this republic to be a Social Democracy?
Woodruff a constitional scholar? That's like putting the Fox in charge of the hen house, or in this case either Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson or FDR in charge of "protecting" the constitution.
Woodruff wrote:First of all, I'm far from a Constitutional scholar. I do teach the Constitution, and I feel that I do know a lot about it. But as to "intents of the founders" and issues like that, I actually don't get into that much BECAUSE IT'S IRRELEVANT to what the Constitution IS. The words of the Constitution are what matters, not what some folks think the founders meant by it (because presumption is required there, as scholars disagree about what individuals founders meant even when they've written things about it).
Let's break it down a bit. "The words of the Constitution are what matters." What are words? That's not a trick question, words have meanings and meanings can be fungible. But law is not fungible. So the meaning of the words as they were meant by the people who wrote them matter a whole lot.
So let's break it down further into constitutional law and the notion of
Legislative intent.
In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue, or when there appears to have been a legislative drafting error.
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.
The constitution is law. It is the supreme law of the land, but it is still law. When a provision can be interperted in more than one fashion it is not the role of justices to make up their own personal opinions on the spot, but to use "legislative" intent to determine the actual "text" of the constitution in context and meaning.
This attitude, ironically, is the reverse of "
original intent" which places the legislative intent above that of the written words themselves, as oppsed to looking at the intent only when the words can have multiple meanings that are not precise and clear.
Original intent maintains that in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding. As in purposivism, tools such as legislative history are often used.
Note that the purpose of either is completely rejected by the progressives who maintain that not only it is impossible to know the intent of old dead men but that the intent is irrevalent anyway. Laws are not designed to give firm structure to the society, designed with specific mechanisms for change as necessary, but are impediments for the current enlightened philosopher king for the implimentaion of his just and perfect decrees (until the next enlightened philosopher king comes along who believes that the previous philosopher king was a dork).
You can see this in Woodruff's clever dodge ...
Woodruff wrote:The other thing to remember is that the Constitution is malleable by Amendment, and intentionally so. This also makes the "intention of the founders" to be irrelevant.
Actually, I would suggest the polar opposite. The Constitution is malleable by amendment and thus assumes that one does not change the meaning of words out from underneath it as that bypasses the amendment process of the constitution. Amendments to the constitution should be based, when not precise, on the "intention of the writers of the amendments."
That actually can get somewhat complex. Consider the case of a person having served two terms as POTUS, being then nominated for the VPOTUS. law is vague. Did the intent of the writers of the two term limit mean to apply the condition of the previous amendment that a VP must have all the qualifications of a P (with the differing wording being used). Should he be allowed to become VP can be become P should the P be forced out of office during his term. Intent of the oldest amendment writers should trump the eariler ones.
Or should a judge just put up a dart board and let the dart fall where it may? Such is the progressive mindset.
