Talk:Original intent

Original intent vs. purposive theory

I have just significantly expanded the purposive theory 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? - Jersyko·talk 17:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

need support for original intent

It would be great if someone would add in a section on arguments for origional intent in opposed to a living constitution.

Imminent change

Re: Originalist Criticisms:
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 argument.
You have good arguments; I would prefer to see them backed up than remove them, hence this advance warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why this article is necessary and important

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 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 Brown v. Board, which is nonsensical: intentionalism might well reject Brown, 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 baseball and cricket, and that baseball and cricket constitute not only some sports, not even a majority if sports, but all sport, per se. Likewise, almost no serious originalists are intentionalists, and all 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 Wikipedia is to remain fact-based, it must find ways to break this fiction, IMHO. Simon Dodd 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If Scalia is in opposition to original intent why does the article cite him as a supporter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.92.252 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

this is dumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.163.5 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Etched in stone

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 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.4.55 (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What complete and utter nonsense.