I think giving him A LOT of laudanum is a good start. Like 5 liters of it.

The Constitution addresses this exact issue, isn't that great? Article 5 is the sewing machine to enlarge the coat.

I was thinking the same thing, I wonder if he gave them parameters for the interview & questions regarding his colleagues were off-limits??

I doubt the framers couldn't imagine creations and inventions not available in their time. Remember, they were enjoying some of the inventions of their day.

Thinking the founders weren't uniquely wise is folly. Thinking Emma has insightful wisdom is even more misguided.

Are Scalia's 6th Amendment opinions "conservative"?

@@alex-brs No summary, just "his opinions" as though I'm expected to know literally everything everyone wrote and have an opinion on it all? "Conservative conclusions" don't always mean "absolute evil." Conservatives are regressive in this country (and many others), but there are some things even they know they need to protect simply because they're too useful not to. Your response was just disingenous at its core. "Constitutional originalism" is a BS position no matter how you hack it because time is a thing that happens, and things change over time. I'm not a Meninite. Most people aren't, but COs want to drag us back to those times regarding the law because of delusions they have about the greatness of those times. It's a regressive position pushed by people who subscribe to a regressive ideology. But they still recognize that trials should be a thing, and that there should be some semblance of fairness, just like even the most regressive people of THOSE times thought, so your whole comeback is complete garbage.

@@samuelrosander1048 It's a reasonable method of constitutional interpretation. If you enact a law in 1800 banning "being gay," you ought to interpret that as to what was enacted in 1800 (i.e. being cheerful, happy, joyful). Not being homosexual (using contemporary ideas of the word). If you wish to change the constitution, use article 5's methods. Not unelected oligarchs.

@@samuelrosander1048 Also, I'm noting that your response completely ignored the substance of my question.

@@alex-brs If you think I "completely ignored the substance of your question," then you can't be helped. "But they still recognize that trials should be a thing, and that there should be some semblance of fairness, just like even the most regressive people of THOSE times though..." That was DIRECTLY responding to your question. I'm also noting, AGAIN, that you said nothing about what his opinions were, but expect me to have a clue just because you might. CO is only "reasonable" to a conservative. If your constitution talks about the right to privacy, keeping religion out of the state, etc, and a law gets passed in the 1800s saying homosexuality is illegal, then that law is unconstitutional, but just wasn't interpreted as such because of social norms. But time is a thing, and social norms change (hopefully for the better), so 200 years later pointing out that the law violates the spirit of those constitutional rights is more reasonable than talking about the context of the word "gay" in order to protect the law that clearly violated the right to privacy, keeping religion out of the state, etc. CO is about pushing a conservaitve/regressive agenda, not being true to the constitution...and even if it was, the constitution shouldn't be put on a pedastal as the infallible product of geniuses, but should be updated regularly to remain relevant to the society that ACTUALLY exists, not the society that NO LONGER exists. The SC doesn't ACTUALLY change the law OR the constitution; it only interprets the constitutionality of the laws passed by the ELECTED oligarchs (over which none of us commoners have literally any control, because our system was never designed to empower us. It was always about protecting the power of the elite while letting the commoners feel like they had a say...and were therefore to blame for the failings and shenanigans of the elite), which requires either looking at the spirit of the constitution, or the social norms of the time the specific laws were written. CO does the latter, which is what you're arguing for, and why it's conservative/regressive. And that includes the good things that were believed and written, not just the backwards things (just to re-address your point, because you might have missed it again); not all things from back then are bad or backwards. The CONSTITUTIONALITY of the law should be interpreted according to the spirit of the constitution (which, again, should be updated regularly like any sane person would do because they know that things change), not the social norms of the time. Because times change, and so do social norms. You can't even use the argument that the legislature should change the laws instead of the SC, because they can't be bothered to change or remove the dumbest laws that everyone laughs at. But that's top-down control for you. You haven't addressed any of what I've written, and actually ignored when I responded to what you wrote. I won't waste my time further.

Yeah, how's that going for Britian and Francd? No first amendment, no say, and resultingly even less democratic control of your own country than we have in the US.

Lefties are all loose constructionists until someone's loose interpretation goes in a direction they don't like.

SO WHERE IS THE AMMENDMENT FOR ABORTION THEN IF YOU SAY ORIGINALISM IS A FAILURE?

There's a lot more information about the Framers' intent than the language of the Constitution. I presume you won't object when it's cited in judicial opinions, since your argument depends on its non-existence. The reason why the U.S. Constitution is so short is that it was designed as a coordination tool. In other words, it omits the standard practices with which the Founders were familiar from their experience with state governments, the Articles of Confederation, and common law.

Unless you're a treasonous bastard, yes.

They might have been bright but they absolutely were not perfect - most of them were young and as they aged, their views changed as did their interpretations. They left the Constitution with options to be changed, they did not consider it some holy stone tablet from the finger of God.

@@OscarLangleySoryu I'm assuming this guy knows what amendments are and is not satisfied with the Constitution as a whole; wanting it dismissed outright. So you could say the same response to him.

Honestly, we could do a lot worse.

SCOTUS represents only the top of one of three branches. The NZ model is a template Americans who value true Freedom are happy to avoid. You guys aren't exactly a bastion of individual liberty with what has befallen your people dictated from a supposed better understanding of what everyone should be required to do from "the top"

@@benfaunce7496 while theoretically, the checks and balances on the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary are contained in your constitution, in practice your Legislature sometimes checks the executive, and visa-versa, there appears to be no check on the judiciary in practice. When you mix in the roles of states and their respective executives, legislatures and judiciaries, the ensuing tangle becomes unworkable. No thanks. I'll take an unwritten constitution, with pragmatic politicians who fix what needs fixing, and let the unbroken be, in a heartbeat. Besides, politics might be interesting, provided it doesn't interfere with the sporting calendar.

@@richardcaves3601 So you can have fools like Ardern draw the bounds of your Freedom on a whim? You can keep yours. We'll keep ours.

@@benfaunce7496 don't tell me, you're an antivaxxer conspiracy nut - they're the only ones who hate Jacinda, and why, because she kept our COVID toll to the lowest in the world. Sorry buddy, but you've just lost all credibility with me.

we are trying to interpret the constitution written 200 years ago not modern American culture

Exactly. Originalism is an offshoot of insecure conservative thinking that believes any admission of error on their philosophy is a sign of weakness that must be avoided at all costs. When was the last time you ever heard a right winger admit they made a mistake for instance.

What, you mean our founding fathers didn't write the 2nd amendment with hollow point, armor piercing rounds in mind? 😱

Puckleguns defeat this theory. As do the severe devastation of cannons that could be privately owned. For freedom to ring; 2A's the only way.

​@@Blakbloodedthe founders had privately owned warships capable of devastating coastal communities in mind.

@@thehappyclam3942 Would you like to own slaves too?

@@benfaunce7496Puckleguns? Did you just go on Wikipedia and looked up shit in an attempt to debunk me? No civilian was using puckleguns which were goofy tripod balanced cannons that were expensive to make and produce. Puckleguns, Airguns, and even rifles were all considered exotic novelty weapons at the time.

Interesting ideas. I would through in the executive branch having too much controlling interest in the agency's therein. A lot of these agencies already overstep the bounds of the constitution.

Except the Supreme Court doesn't try to sell it to us, they impose it upon us!

Unfortunately the ignoranti view his statement as a justification for them to use violence to reinforce minority rule.

Do you understand the effect of the 3/5ths compromise? It gave the South LESS power than it would have if all the slaves were counted as 'whole' persons.

You do realize the 3/5 principle was constitutionally abolished?

Ironically, historically it took an amendment to enforce the notion of "inalienable" human rights.

Save for the loose constructionist perspective liberals have had for 60 years.

quotes from the letters , notes and speeches of the founders help to remove a lot of the subjectivity in interpreting on guns, religion etc

@garyfarrell954: So where does that put judicial activism, which is generally regarded as the alternative to constitutional originalism?

@@Stephen-gi1rx it's not they could be one and the same

@@robinsss How about supplying an example or two to illustrate your point. Because it seems more likely you are merely confusing what someone preaches about from the proverbial pulpit and what they ACTUALLY put into practice as a judge.

So what is the alternative? Judicial activism? Going down that latter route would appear to allow a bunch of unelected (and in the case of the current SCOTUS, largely right-wing) judges to rewrite the US Constitution in whatever way they feel like. Is that REALLY the sort of situation you would prefer?

That's why originalism doesn't particularly care about original intent. Especially not Scalia's version. It's concerned with original PUBLIC MEANING. What did the interpretative community understand the law to mean?

Actually the Constitution can be ruled unconstitutional and has been several times. That's because amendments are written by Congress, and are often deeply flawed, so they sometimes conflict with other parts of the Constitution.

@@Zomby_Woof There is nothing explicitly stated in the constitution that can be ruled unconstitutional. Give me a single example.

@@Zomby_Woof '''''''Actually the Constitution can be ruled unconstitutional and has been several times.''''' when did it happen?

@@somersetcace1 a new amendment could be unconstitutional depending on how it's worded if a new amendment violates a right mentioned in the bill of rights then it could be ruled constitutional

@@robinsss Nope. The bill of rights can be amended as well. There is nothing keeping any of the 27 amendments from being repealed by amendment.

I don't struggle with it. I am a modernist. Would you like to know more?

@@fairalways I'd love to!

Good! Scalia wrote voluminously. Spend as much time as Scalia wasted funneling his anti-science, anti-intellectual dogmatic views through what he thought dead men meant; only instead, occupy yourself with where modern morality finds its primarily humanist (liberal and social) locus of agreement and debate, allowing for the growing insights into sentientism, and spend time applying them to to a redefining and/or confirming of our rights, and remake our Constitution accordingly, just as Jefferson suggested we do periodically. We have no shortage of moral and ethical geniuses who can argue just as was done in 1787, only they're more enlightened today. And some archaic and/or anti-democratic things, like either redefining our Senate or chucking it, chucking our Electoral College, rewriting our second amendment, are no-brainers. Modern. Of COURSE Scalia would try to reduce it to a word. I'm just giving the sort of one-word answer he thought would be a gotcha.

This means nothing,you are an originalist at the beginning,and then you grow it to amplify it🌳

@robrich7846: ""If you aren't an originalist, what are you?"" The short answer is that you are a supporter of judicial activism, where a bunch of unelected judges get to (in effect) re-write the US Constitution using their judicial powers to interpret that Constitution rather than the politicians using article five and a formal constitutional amendment. Judicial activism has its supporters on both the Left and the Right. For some examples of right-wing judicial activism at work check out such Supreme Court cases as the so-called Insular Cases, Dred Scot v. Sanford, and Chae Chan Ping v. United States (also known as the Chinese Exclusion Case).

Well. They did and didn't. The Dutch West India Company was a corporation. But corporations didn't really start up in the US until the 1790s, after the Constitution was written and ratified. I do think the lack of regulations is a big issue that needs to be addressed

U dont know history

​@@soulknife20 The Massachusetts Bay Company and the Providence Island Company were in the Americas since 1629. Hey, aren't those closely related to state names?! What a coincidence! I think you may have some of the corporatism deleted from your history book for some reason.

@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 I think that your interpretation is more reflective of your reading level than it is of my ability to talk about corporations in an even handed manner. Reading back through the text of the comments here, it seems to me that you're the one in that's failed to talk about corporations in an even handed manner. All you did was reflexively hand out defensive accusations and added absolutely nothing to the conversation otherwise. So start adding to the conversation in an even handed manner, or stop pretending you know how to recognize a good faith argument. You don't. It's all projection and misinterpretation to you.

​@@ywtccConsidering neither one of those existed at the time of the Founders, I chose to ignore them, you goofy little boy

Sorry that was one guys letter and it obviously wasn't implemented so it holds 0 weight.

@@hatchetwound666yeah just one guy who had nothing to do with the constitution- his opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant right? You don’t have a very critical mind- the relevance of the quote to the discussion at hand is quite clearly beyond your comprehension.

@@stefangeorge2844 He was a founding father he was not king. His personal opinion or feeling on the subject is irrelevant it was never implemented. There is a process for amending the constitution it doesn't say "rewrite the constitution every 20 years" anywhere in the constitution. That'd be like me finding a letter from James Madison saying rights never ever change and can't be taken away & declaring it relevant since a founding father wrote it.

. @hatchetwound666 Sorry but knowing the mind of the people who wrote the document is relevant outside the myopic and deliberately obtuse interpretation of activist judges who benefit things as they are now -dysfunctional... that's like your opinion man.

@@Jakeurb8ty82 Sorry but rewriting the constitution every 20 years was never implemented into the constitution. Feel free to push for an amendment that adds that.

'''''''''''The only people the constitution protects are rich white land-owning men, traditionally.''''''''' which part of the constitution says that?

Probably the most retarded take I've ever read

Only if the other loose constructionists live with the turmoil resulting from the tyranny of the majority and mischief of faction.

​@benfaunce7496 I'll gladly take you up on that given I'm Swiss and that's surely how we operate from your POV. It's given us: A higher GDP per capita and stronger growth rates than the USA Astronomically more healthy public finances Greater protections and rights for workers A better and more affordable education system Less poverty Less homelessness Lower unemployment Lower taxes Punctual and well funded public transport across the country All while being more diverse than the USA to boot. :) Swiss institutions. Give them a try sometime. :P Greetings from Switzerland

Try telling that to the religitards.

Still comes down to how those facts are interpolated, who has the "authority" Universities and Academia suffer from many of the same political issues

Indeed. I, too, agree we should continue to change guns; furthering the technology and effectiveness of modern firearms.

​@@benfaunce7496Or. Hear me out. No. Now go away piss baby

The founders would agree that change is necessary; many of them changed their minds on the very things they wrote, especially once they took office and tried to implement them.

@@benfaunce7496Pathetic attempt to troll with guns - fail.

@@mainely8007 They wouldn't change their minds on the imperative aspect to individual autonomy being armed protects. Only a statest half-chubbed on Mama government would think populace disarmament is a good idea.

Liberalism is asleep for sure. Freedom is threatened. There aren't liberals anymore; there are leftist zombies who want everyone to live decadent reality-rejecting self affirming lies while Mama Government takes care of everything and keeps you "safe"

​@@shadebleuA bunch of yahoos who have no idea what they are talking about. Classic rightoids

@@soulknife20 And yet making derogatory generalizations about an entire group of people is somehow laced with objectivity and virtue?

​@@anthonymorris5084I'm not trying to be virtuous. That's your first mistake. The right deserves to be bullied for voting for absolute morons

NO,purposed for "Life,Liberty,Aand Pursuit of Happiness"-use 🧠

They already are dipshit. Rights don’t become real because we really really believe they are. They’re real because there is some type of monopoly of force there to ensure them.😂

Well the amendments aren’t being done due to originalists. Times are different and your rights are at the whims of elected people that have no interest in your rights anyway if it shakes the status quo and upward flow of money. Realistically the U.S needs to scrap that fucking constitution completely and create a new one, the original text wasn’t meant to last this long

​@@GrimReaderAbsolutely not I do not trust corrupt bought & paid for politicians to re write our rights sounds like each amendment in your new constitution will go to the highest bidder.

​@@stevensteckle5973Wtf does that even mean? Such a generic statement.

@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231this is an insane statement

No. The Amendment process was specifically designed to account for inevitable societal change, never mind the entire concept of "Originalism" is ironical absolutely bullshit The Right made up because of course they can't be honest about their true motivations and positions.

Yeah I am not for the one side that wants to "update" the constitution by making their one religion rule all over our land.

@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231can you given an example of what you mean in terms of constitutional interpretation?

I believe all copies of the constitution should be handwritten in cursive with a quill. Anything less is anti-originalist and woke.

Props to the Federalist take

@@benfaunce7496 are federalist anti second ammendment then?

If you were correct, we would not need the U.S. Code. The Constitution is different than the U.S. Code. It was intentionally drafted with broad concepts, ideas to be used as guides.

Considering that orginalism was not part of the founders intent but a reaction by cons to the civil rights movement it can and should be discarded. That and the fact that it is utterly false as well.

you're so wrong

Every law that was passed was done after debate, input and some form of process that allows for interpretation with respect to original intent. However, even the founding fathers knew that things would change and they themselves did so during their own lives. Jefferson was dead set against the purchase of further lands beyond the original colonies - later he signed the Louisiana Purchase eagerly. Declaring the Constitution to be essentially carved in stone by the finger of god and therefore never interpreted differently is absolutist and ignorant.

That's a reasonably nuanced answer with merit but what we are talking about is a group of people who claim to be the ONLY GROUP capable of interpreting something written by people who are no longer alive. This is not simply a problem with the US Constitution its a problem with so many social & political institutions and the dogmas created by people in these "We know the truth!" groups. On another subject but equally plagued with dogma is economics and that currently has an incredible effect on our lives. There's the 2 competing ideologies of capitalism that came from people like Adam Smith and David Ricardo versus the socialism & communism that came from people like Karl Marx. Right now we are dominated by Chicago School neoliberal economics that was formulated by people like Hayek and Freidman. Most of us have NO IDEA what any of them were on about. We rely on people interpreting what they meant. There are 100s of acolytes who will all happily explain the virtues of what Smith, Marx and Ricardo wrote and champion their causes AND they will do it no matter what evidence there is that the systems they put in place HAVE FAILED. The pure socialism and communism of Eastern Europe FAILED, but you can't tell that to a Marxist Lefty. The pure capitalism of America and the West is FAILING but you can't tell that to a Freidmanite Capitalist. I'm Australian but went to college in America. I think the US Constitution is one of the greatest achievements in human history BUT BECAUSE of these people who claim to be the true interpreters its now regarded as a joke around the world. I think the original Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) is sublime genius but its been trampled on by packs of ideological M0R0Ns who act of of pure selfishness and arrogance.

What gun are you talking about? The Girandoni-style air rifle? If so, that's a repeating rifle, but not an auto loader. It also wasn't really used for self-defense, but for intimidation, as it were. They had only one, and they demonstrated it when they met with Indian tribes to show how fast it could shoot, but didn't tell them that it was the only one they had.

Lol. What exactly about the Majority Report is extremist? They’ve always come off as sane and level headed to me

@@markbrandt3252you’re wasting your time. This is a sad dude that desperately leaves hundreds of comments on videos of a channel he doesn’t care about or like. You know real adult stuff

extreme times call for extreme policies, the us constitution is full of dead ideas written by white supremacists

Tell me the extremist part.

Agreed, but the Left don't tolerate, let alone welcome "push back". It's anathema.