X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:19:23 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Originalism and Facts: a disjoint posting
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
>[Somebody]
>>I have one question for those that say original intent should matter *most*:
>>Does the line "...all men are created equal." have any other meaning than
>>[White Land Owning Males]?
>
>[Andy F.]
>>In that document, it doesn't.  Since the declaration of independence
>>hasn't had any legal weight since the adoption of the articles of
>>confederation (which are also legally void now), it isn't clear why
>>that's interesting though.
>
>It is often considered interesting by "Originalists." Some brands,
>anyway. While the Declaration has no legal force of its own,
>it is evidence of the frame of mind of the framers of the
>Constitution, and such evidence is generally considered
>important by Originalists.

        One of the first amendment proposals (out of the group that became the
Bill of Rights) was an equal rights for all people style amendment.  Opposition
from the southern states killed it, just like it did for the original
consitution.  At that point the major concern was cementing the new nation
together.
        There were originally 20 amendements, cut down to 12 in the first cut,
then 10 for the final version.  It's interesting to look at the original 20 and
see which ones are still being proposed today.

>Maybe. I hope so.
>The problem is that you'll be held hostage by historians.

        We'll take a million in small bills.
:D

>You will have to accept their verdict about what the
>Framers intended when they wrote those amendments.
>And myself, I think the outcome will depend on precisely
>which kind of Originalism is used.

        It's interesting to think about how society was back then.  Slavery was
accepted by a large percent of the population (not condoned by all of them, but
accepted).

>Last note about "persons":
>there is some evidence that the Framers actually intended
>to include corporations as legal persons in their official
>wordings. Then again, that evidence is largely presented
>(I think) by Charles Beard, who may not be the most
>reliable historian....

        Corporations had an entirely different (I want to say meaning, but
that's not exactly the word...) definition (?) back then.  This is
pre-industrial revolution remember.  Corporations were largely financial
ventures.

...
>T on facts:
>>andy from stanford apparently has a different definition of "fact" than I do.
>>If I post a *fact* that is incorrect, please point it out and tell me the
>>correct one (whatever - number, date, etc.).  If I present an opinion with
>>which you disagree, please refute it.  Where I think he's lost is the
>>difference between, say, "The Vietnam War was fought in the 1930's" (a clear
>>factual mistake)

        Only is you mean for the US :).  The Vietnamese fought Khmer for a
couple of centuries, then the Chinese for a millenia or so, then the French,
then the Japanese, then the French again, then us.  (How's that for
determination? :)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU