# Questions for Originalists (specially Bricker\*)

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-for-originalists-specially-bricker/566555>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [January 6, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-for-originalists-specially-bricker/566555 "2011-01-06T00:51:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-for-originalists-specially-bricker/566555/1 "2011-01-06T00:51:01Z")

</div>

- assuming Bricker is an originalist.

Justice Scalia’s definition of originalism:

> [@Scalia](#):
>
> The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and givesit the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.

Basically, the Constitution means what it was thought to mean when it was passed.

I two questions:

1. Do you believe that states can run racially segregated public schools? The same congress that passed the 14th amendment and sent it to the states also funded segregate schools, and it took over 80 years before segregated schools were thought to be unconstitutional.

2. Do you believe the federal government can arrest and imprison people for speaking against the government (assuming they pass law to do this), regardless of whether that speech creates a clear and present danger? The framers’ view of free speech was a right against prior restraint. The framers thought juries would protect against bad prosecutions.

edit - specially = specifically

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-for-originalists-specially-bricker/566555/2 "2011-01-06T03:48:10Z")

</div>

I am tempted to close this thread and tell you to try again.

First: as Scalia notes, he is a textualist, not an originalist, so you begin with an error.

Second: You have two separate questions that will possibly get quite differing answers.

Third: I am really not happy with posters calling other posters out. Normally I allow it, but when it is based on errors of perception, I am more likely to shut down the thread.

Heck with it.  
Try it again; I’m closing this.  
Don’t pick a fight with a specific poster.  
Present an actual argument rather than asking loaded questions.

[/Modding]