Here is a fascinating speech by David Souter (Souter at Harvard).. His part starts at about 4:00. — tim wood

I watched judge Souter's speech. What he says is clear: the constitution is to be interpreted, and 'fair reading' approach would not have served America well.

The issue is that the fair reading approach does exist. Is it the best approach? No, but I doubt that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Once can read it and say: this is one approach, this is another, and I believe that the citizens of the United States are better served by a progressive, open- ended approach to interpretation of the constitution.

It is unclear, however, how such an approach can be free of abuse.

A ship steered by the net result of see-sawing bench of liberal and conservative judges cannot but steer a zig zag course to nowhere.

We need to place the Constitution in historical perspective to understand intent.
— wellwisher

This is what does not happen. The best you do is establish what you think is original intent. If you're honest you leave it with that label: what we think they meant. Anything else is dishonest even to the point of being a lie. Ignorance isn't an excuse because people know too much to claim ignorance. They can ignore information, but then we're back to ignorance and lies compounded.

The rest of your post is too skewed and ill-informed to respond to. — tim wood

Original intent has to go back to before the Constitution was written, so we can understand what the motivation was that led to the writing. You don't start the day it was written, since the thought process and need began years, if not generations, before it was written.

The USA was originally a colony, of a colonial empire, ruled by king and queens. Under a monarchy there were two classes of people; upper and peasant. The King had the divine rights of kings and had control over life, death and taxes. While royal blood line gave advantages but did not always mean competence. History is full of leaders who should not have been, but were, due to royal entitlement. Lack of ability in power can lead to insecurity and paranoia, or to a lecherous lifestyle.

Settling the new territories was not something most people wanted to do. Australia used criminals and prisoners. The Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom. The Royal control over religion was enough motivation for many people to leave their home and deal with the fear of the unknown in the new world.

The colonists were far enough away from England to enjoy more freedom than those who had remained in England. They had a chance to see there was another way. The old way was as old as civilization. The new way, connected to religious and personal freedom, was closer to an ideal way; heaven on earth. The idea of inalienable rights comes from religion not monarchies. The left argues religion from the POV of the King of England, not the colonists.

The founding fathers understood the usefulness of government. But based on the English government and power structure model, they also saw how government can also become overbearing and an instrument for violence and corruption. They were looking for a new sweet spot. Government should be like a butler to its citizens, not an overlord. The butler will serve the citizens so they are free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The King's government was that of an overlord trying to control lifer to maintain power.

Original intent has to go back to before the Constitution was written, so we can understand what the motivation was that led to the writing. You don't start the day it was written, since the thought process and need began years, if not generations, before it was written. — wellwisher

You're missing the point. With any text you either know what it was intended to mean, or you do not know what it was intended to mean. With those texts whose content/intent you can reproduce in yourself you can satisfy almost any standard of understanding - but these are either grocery shopping lists or maths textbooks.

Can you make a decent guess based on whatever is appropriate? Sure. Can you run a country based on decent guesses? You have to!

Or this. Were it possible to know original intent, then why a judiciary, and why a Supreme Court?

The distinction is categorical: either you know or you do not know. If you claim to know, or that knowing is possible, please make your case.

A ship steered by the net result of see-sawing bench of liberal and conservative judges cannot but steer a zig zag course to nowhere. — FreeEmotion

An interesting throwaway metaphor. If it's a sailing ship on an upwind tack, zig-zag is the only way to go! But the idea of "nowhere" catches my eye. Maybe it's not worth pursuing - you decide - but do you have any ideas either for the meaning or an account of the "nowhere"?

Or this. Were it possible to know original intent, then why a judiciary, and why a Supreme Court? — tim wood

The Supreme Court has the authority to make a ruling on a Constitutional case. I may not be free to do so objectively because it has to be mindful of the power it has to changed the lives of people.

Imagine a totally ignorant person reading a Constitution and its second amendment. Only it is not the US Constitution but that of a un-named new country that has freed itself from colonial power through a bloody separatist war.

Thought process on reading the second amendment: "Militia? Like an armed para-military group? OK well if it says there can be para paramilitaries running around with guns to keep the army in check I guess that's what it says. . OK so we let them keep their guns, in case the government misbehaves they can take over. Maybe like the third pillar of democracy. OK. Go for it. Should be fun to watch."

The Supreme Court cannot be so recklessly free in its interpretation. It is not that it is not possible to know the original intent, or read at face value, or in its most likely meaning, it is simply not possible to even discuss publicly the interpretation without being very careful to take into account the huge impact discussion will cause. It is not possible simply because the Supreme Court discussions as well as decisions are no dinner conversations but really government policy-making.

When every thought is public, you have to be careful what you think.

Maybe nowhere is not the best word. I think I should say "a zig-zag course to a point somewhere in between the two destinations, a destination which neither party is happy to reach."

Being there, I watched the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. I watched in on C-SPAN at the time, which was more interesting than regular TV. I saw the opposition to his appointment. At another time I also remember seeing around campus people wearing a button with the word "BORK" crossed out. This was during the confirmation hearings of Justice Robert Bork.

If the appointment of a Supreme court justice is such a political issue, I would think that that is because the composition of the Supreme Court determines the future course of the history of the country.

With such widely contrasting opinions, rather than interpret the Constitution correctly, if that were possible, it seems that the constitution is simply a football in the hands of liberals and conservatives, each trying to take a hold of it and steer it into their own goals.

Can you make a decent guess based on whatever is appropriate? Sure. Can you run a country based on decent guesses? You have to!

Or this. Were it possible to know original intent, then why a judiciary, and why a Supreme Court?

The distinction is categorical: either you know or you do not know. If you claim to know, or that knowing is possible, please make your case. — tim wood

The reason you need judiciary and a Supreme Court is criminal behavior trying to undermine original intent using lawyer tricks. Supreme court and other justices are appointed by politicians who, like monarchies, will try to stack the deck in their favor, using beholden people of like minds. When there is a social issue, watch how the trained seals vote. They will vote down party line and sugar coat their answer, with lawyer tricks, so it looks like a spontaneous thought out inference.

If you go back to the Pilgrims who settled America, and the criminal and political prisoners sent to settle Australia, neither settlement was going to be a cat walk. These people were not going to arrive, like modern illegal immigrants, to land with jobs, social services, health care and logistics all set up by big Government. It was going to be a wild and untamed place. Their survival would depend on rugged individualism, cooperation, and a need to improvise. This set the tone. Not many people wanted to go there unless ordered, pressured, or as a way out of their current negative predicament.

Religious criminals, civil criminals and political prisoners were willing to go, because what they had in England was not good, and they were willing to take the chance. It was worse for them in England because monarchy rule and the heavy hand of government had highjacked religious freedom, and stack the deck in favor of the ruling class. They had two sets of laws and their own version of PC speech.

The founding fathers of the Constitution, would include things that represented the original founding father, relative to them; freedom of speech for political prisoners, freedom of religion for the spiritual and pilgrims, and freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness for those impacted by the dual standard legal system of monarchy rule.

These were the things big government had stolen to maintain the status quo. The Constitution also addressed rugged self reliance and individualism, since this was needed to tame and settle the frontiers. The Constitution was about a new way of life based on the needs of a moving frontier, that was always ahead of government logistics, and not slow boated behind it. The idea was to unleash human potential; Government of the people, by the people and for the people. It was not supposed to be a government of, by and for special interests groups; ruling classes, who control the people. That was the old way of monarchies.

The bottom line is the Democrat preferred the monarchy way, and try to regress backwards by pretending to move forward. For example, slavery in the Democrat south was a way for someone to play the role of royalty, with control over life and death. Undermining original intent started early. The removal of slavey by the Republican brought original intent back. The slaves were the pilgrims and political prisoners of old.

For example, slavery in the Democrat south was a way for someone to play the role of royalty, with control over life and death. Undermining original intent started early — wellwisher

Well you could argue this: slavery was OK by the Constitution when it was written. Of course there could be improvements along the way, with the intent of broadening the scope of the constitution, as Judge Souter says, there are parts of the Constitution which are "in tension" with each other.

Supreme court and other justices are appointed by politicians who, like monarchies, will try to stack the deck in their favor, using beholden people of like minds — wellwisher

Interpretation is one thing, playing politics with the Constitution is another. I see the difference more clearly now. One could argue which is which, though.