Quote:I'm sorry but Constitutionalism "intent' (idea that we are supposed to view everything with the idea/perspectives of the framers) is so bogus. 

 

If the framers were so correct and right all the time, why did they allow for Amendments? If we could just use their intent about different situations, why include a specific way to change what they wrote. Why didn't they just write their intent into law instead? 

 

In that case that their initial intent was so holy, why did they immediately add 10 amendments to the Constitution? Are Bill of Rights not as important as the rest of the Constitution?

 

Why did we add another 17 Amendments years afterwards? Are those not as important, do they meet the "intent" of the framers? If the Constitution is so perfect, why not go back to only those owning land being able to vote, and the general population not being able to vote for President or Senate as the framers INTENDED for fear of vox populi and the French Revolution.

Where to begin? 

 

1st and foremost the supreme court was established to interpret the law, not write it.  That is the job to the congress.  

 

This idea that since liberals cannot get pet policies through the legal process of passing bills or amending the constitution that stacking the courts with friendly justices is a viable solution is just wrong.  Our founding fathers did factor that they may have overlooked something and put a system in place to correct any thing they might have missed.  Bypassing that system is in part of what is dividing us as a nation.

---