I've Been Accused of being Liberal. Okay I'm laying my cards on the table

RebSaint said

No, but the framers thought that both document represented the pulling, tugging, compromise, and interests of the "people," granted the people at the time were property-holding, white males.

History can ascertain why particular amendments were formulated, adopted, and agreed upon. The framers even recognized that the all people's interests were represented. The framers all didn't agree, but I think the historical record through the Federalist Papers, biographies, etc. can offer some context in what they intended given the time period THEY lived in. Some of those ideas are obsolete, I agree. But some aren't.

Click to expand...

But even with respect to the so-called "framers" themselves, more than a few have left no written record. So not only would an "originalism" ignore the thinking of almost every person in whose power the Constitution was ratified, but they will even ignore the thinking of many of the drafters. Why should the historical accident of, say, the Federalsit and Anti-Federalist papers, and teh other writings concerning ratification, become dispositive?

Not to get off topic, but this reminds me of a talk I had with a professor of Sanskrit. He was telling me that our view of India - particularly India before the Moghul invasion, is seriously skewed because the vast majority of writings we have come from the Brahaman class.