A reader writes:
So if Bachmann really wants to go back to the vision of 1789, by all means let her. She unfortunately would not be able to vote for herself in the election due to the fact that the 19th amendment didn't pass until 1920.
Another writes:
This isn't so much about whether Bachmann is improving or not (I don't think she is, nor do I think it matters when it comes to the nomination this time around). This is more about the Founders and the notion of them as some hive-minded group of supermen.
The real problem that Originalists have is that even in 1789, the Constitution was a series of compromises. From the counting of slaves in the census to the makeup of the House and Senate to the overlapping powers in foreign policy (president's negotiate and sign treaties, but they are ratified by the Senate, the power to make war, sending and receiving ambassadors) to advice and consent to the entire Bill of Rights. And it was always open to interpretation – that's what Marbury v Madison (a case involving to varying degrees four Founders) stands for more than anything.
This is the major problem any time someone tries to rely on the Founders. Because for every Jefferson quote you can come up with, I can find a quote by Hamilton or Adams that stands for something different. I can probably find two from Madison that contradict themselves. Not to mention Washington's opinion on not getting involved in foreign entanglements. This is especially difficult for Originalists to accept – they want some School House Rock version of history where everybody agreed about everything, and that's just not the way it went.
Originalists have to overlook the fact that Jefferson vehemently opposed the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. They have to overlook that Madison's views changed. They have to overlook that in order to get the Constitution out of the Convention, the abolitionists (and there were some, Franklin and Hamilton among them) had to agree that the issue of the trans-Atlantic slave trade couldn't be touched for twenty some years.
Yes, there were some Founders who wanted to end slavery, but they were the types that the Originalists wouldn't like today because they also happened to be Federalists who believed in the necessity of a strong central government. Really, calling these folks Originalists or Federalists is a sham. And I can say this as a former member of the Federalist Society who spent years talking with a lot of the legal minds (folks who believe repealing the 17th Amendment makes a great deal of sense), and really, they aren't Federalists, and they aren't Originalists – they are Anti-Federalists.
Another:
One thing I don't understand about "Originalists", as you called them, is their complete ignorance (or convenient forgetfulness) of the anti-corporate side of colonial America. One of the major shackles the colonial Americans where throwing off was the corporate power in England that dominated trade with the colonies.
Where are the constitutional fundamentalists calling for a return to limited corporate charters that had to be shown to be for the public good? Where are the calls for corporations to not be able to own shares of other corporations, for corporations to be strictly forbidden from political influence or policy, and for corporations to be strictly held to only the expressed public good function of their charter?
I think many of us would be glad to see much of the power of corporations stripped back to more originalist ideas of corporate purpose (especially after seeing the documentary "Hot Coffee" on HBO and seeing how the US Chamber of Commerce has been spending bags of money on judicial elections across the US to install more business friendly judges).
Another:
Your observation on Rep. Bachmann and her contextualization of slavery reminded me of an experience some thirty years ago that still makes me laugh. It happened in late 1979. I was working on an archeological dig in a very, very Republican (i.e., Catholic) area of Northern Ireland. When I showed up, the Beeb had just started showing Roots, and the entire village was aghast. You couldn't walk into a pub without seeing it. The Troubles were still seething, several of the locals were incarcerated, and the connection the remaining populace felt to the oppressed Africans was palpable. Everyone was caught up in the drama.
The dig was made up almost entirely of non-local university students. About three days into my tour, one girl from Dublin caught me scraping away by myself, and, out of earshot of the Protestants on the dig, hissed, "No Catholic could ever own slaves!" I remember rocking back on my heels and looking up at her, wondering where to begin. As my mind swirled over the thought "But your last name is Carroll!" – the same famously Catholic family that owned more than 350 slaves here in Maryland – I decided it was better not to start to say anything at all. Sometimes, explanation seems futile.
Another:
I wonder if Michele Bachman knows that her hero of the American Revolution, John Quincy Adams, took his presidential oath of office on a book of laws, not a Bible – because he wanted to protect the separation of church and state. Me and Wikipedia, we're just sayin' …
It appears a Bachmann fan got a hold of the JQA Wiki page as well.
The Dish 