Debate: Should SCOTUS Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution?

Originalism is a way of interpreting the Constitution. In the past, the legal theory referred to framer’s intent, but the contemporary, prevailing view of originalism is that it attempts to understand the Constitution by looking at what the public would’ve intended at the time of ratification. This theory has been used in the Roberts Supreme Court to interpret landmark cases related to race, religion, gun-safety laws, and some say abortion and could be used in others. Those who argue “yes” say the Constitution is like any other document that needs modern interpretation, even if not everything that existed in the text back then exists today. Others who argue “no” explain it doesn’t make sense to keep our laws limited to what society would've valued during the country’s founding and it risks constraining judges into one viewpoint.


In this context, we ask the question: Should the Supreme Court Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution?

#opentodebate #debate #Constitution #legaltheory #ratification #race #religion #gunsafetylaws #abortion # SupremeCourt


===================================

===================================

[ottofrinta]

Please bring back the pre-covid format. It was one of the best things on Youtube. I would even be willing to chip in to make it happen.

[chad]

No, they should make it up on the fly. That way, it can mean absolutely nothing. Which I'm assuming is the goal.

[NicholasWongCQ]

To any honest person, the Welfare and Commerce clauses have absolutely been abused over time.

[benjaminponzer]

Dude lost as soon as he admitted that he can't read the 2nd amendment.

[benjaminponzer]

Colby is sad cuz you have to read the constitution. Last 4 words of the second amendment

[benjaminponzer]

Can't take their right to keep and bear arms cuz they are not convicted. How dumb is this Colby guy?