CPAC: Consevatives Vote for Ron Paul

Remove all ads!

I'm glad to know the Virginia legislature could appreciate the benefits of a good blowjob.

 

Heterosexual sodomy was covered under Virginia's sodomy laws prior to 1916. Yes, Virginia's sodomy laws were not expanded to cover oral sex until 1916, but other sodomy laws passed in other colonies/states very frequently did. I chose Virginia because you live there, and I could have gone with any state. Even sticking to the Virginia example, my point was still largely stands, as Virginia's sodomy laws pre-1916 still covered more than just gay people. I can still go state by state if you insist, but I'd rather not waste my time with something so incredibly unimportant to the larger point that I'm trying to make. Even in the 18th century, sodomy laws covered more than just sodomy, and they applied to more than just gay people. They did in Virginia, too.

No. What I said is that we shouldn't treat "founder intent" like a straight jacket. I like the constitution just the way it is, but we wouldn't have granted women suffrage if we stuck to what the founders intended, since the founders didn't grant women the right to vote. We wouldn't have extended the right to vote to non-landowning males if we stuck to what the founders intended either, since the founders only guaranteed that right to landowners. I understand that things weren't simple at the time our union was created, but there is no point whatsoever in speculating about whether the founders, as a group, wanted to do something that they for whatever reason chose not to do. While an argument that most of the founders supported the abolition of slavery but conceded the issue in order to get the south on board can be made*, the same argument really can't be made regarding the suffrage of women or non-landowners. You really can't assume that a founder who opposed slavery would have necessarily favored allowing black men to vote, either.

I don't like the slavery argument because I feel it assumes too much. The founders were not one man, so we cannot judge "founder intent" by looking to only the most enlightened of our founders. In determining what our founders, as a body, intended, the only thing we have to go on is what they, as a body, passed into law. The founders did not extend the right to vote only to landowning white men by accident. They did not keep the baneful practice of slavery alive by accident. While there were founders that did indeed want to see an end to slavery, there were also founders that saw nothing wrong with it and wanted the institution to continue. You can't just pick and choose when it comes to "founder intent."

* An argument that in my opinion doesn't give enough credence to the fact that the southern slave owners they "wanted to bring on board" were also founders, and that simply being a northerner or not owning slaves did not make you an abolitionist.

 

It is anything but that. The nation was shaped by largely the same concerns regarding government that started with the "founders' intent" of 1776. The principles that drove the Revolution had to manifest themselves in the fashion of government that those same men would craft at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 -- the same men who declared one form of government unjust and injurious, and fought a Revolution upon those principles and hoped to provide the remedies for those injuries in the new government they hoped to craft. But they could not agree upon a final "intent" in fashioning that government, so they largely crafted a framework in which we could continue to shape a government that was organic, and would be further shaped by the debates and concerns of each proceeding generation. Hence my earlier comment, "which founder and which intent?"

In providing us that framework, they have been largely successful. In many ways we are still having the same debate that Hamilton and Jefferson had at the beginning of our government, and around which the first two parties in our two-party system emerged. The Founders intent was never to have a party system at all, yet it emegred - with the Founders as active participants -- despite what they wanted themselves.

The focus of this deabte has been the Constitution, and that document is the form of govenment around which the national debate has taken shape, and expressed itself, not the underlying principles. But that is only the framework, and real core of the issues are the core principles set down in the Declaration of Independence, those upon which the Revolution rested. It was not rocket science to see that the Constitution failed to remedy the grievance "That All Men Are Created Equal and Endowed by Their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights...." Do you think they missed the point that slavery in the new nation was a contradiction to the opening principle of their document? Of course they saw it.

But the larger question, Drew, is did the framework that they crafted for us allow us to remedy it? I believe it has.* I would counter that the Founders were incrementalists, large incrementalists, but still incrementalists nevertheless, who were unable to rework all of society and government overnight, but instead made changes that were quite radical within the stuctures with which they were working, knowing that they were taking only the first steps. In this sense, their Revolution was far less bloody and less chaotic than either the French or Russian Revolutions, although with much greater and sustained changes in the long run.

Drew - What you appear to be saying is that we have made strides towards those core principles in the DoI DESPITE what the Founders fashoined, while some of us are saying that we have made those strides BECAUSE of what the Founders began. But I could be reading you wrong in that regards. My apologies in advance if I am.

* The Civil War occurred because the South knew it was on the losing side of the debate on those principles in the DoI. And when they knew the winds were moving against them in the course of legitmate government, they attempted by force what they could not succeed in through the political process.

 

Not quite. What I am saying is that the Founders fashioned a document that enabled us to make continual strides towards the core principles in the DOI despite themselves. They gave us the rainbow, but their 18th century sensibilities would have held them back from following it all the way to the pot of gold at the end.

 

I think some of his economic proposals are just lunacy, but there are plenty other reasons to really like Ron Paul:

​

 

Agreed, Ragusa. The problem with Dr. Paul is that he isn't electable. In the 1990's, A series of newsletters in his name contained several racist remarks -- including one that said order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks." Any democratic opponent worth his salt (and even some moderate republicans) would flog him mercilessly for those comments. In his defense, Dr. Paul says he didn't write them. I'm even inclined to believe him, but the problem is that they were still in his newsletter. In my opinion, this newsletter would prove to be a nearly insurmountable problem for Dr. Paul in a national campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

 

Again, look here. Specifically under 'Construction of the Term "Sodomy"'. Anal sex of any kind was banned in some areas, while others only banned the homosexual form (and actually didn't ban other homosexual acts). Other acts commonly collected under 'sodomy' laws didn't appear in them until the 1900s. Here's a good summary, though it doesn't go into specifics of what:

The idea that the colonies and early states were sexually repressed came primarily from looking at the Victorian period (1873-1948) and the English laws that pre-dated the colonies.

Ah, ok. I thought that, since we were talking about interpretations of the standing Constitution, that you had meant:

in the same vein. I see amendments as a very different issue, and the one conservatives typically go for. Conservatives regularly object to the courts all but re-writing the Constitution with their interpretations, as it is only questionably their job to do so. I don't think I've ever heard of conservatives objecting to amendments (in general).

I think the problem we're having is that we are likely talking about different groups of the 'founding fathers'. You've collected them all together and passed judgement on them with one brush. This is what I (and I think Chandos) object to. While some of them certainly were the devils you portray, others would likely be quite comfortable in modern society (given time to adjust to TV, the internet, planes, cars, satellites, etc).

All in all (and attempting to stay on topic), I think the vote for Ron Paul is less a serious endorsement of him as a candidate and more a "bow shot" at the established leadership.

 

The founders weren't devils. They just lived in a different age. Look back to just the 1950's. That was 60 years ago, and look how far we've come in such a short time span. In the '50's, spousal rape was legal, separate but equal was still constitutional, and discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and credo was rampant. That was only 60 years ago, but look at how out of touch the culture warriors from the civil rights era are with modern society. The last of our founders died 175 years ago. They'd be even more out of touch than that.

In my mind, you can't use "founder intent" when you're just talking about Jefferson or Hamilton. Southern plantation owners and slavers were founders, too, and if you are going to use a blanket term like "founder intent," you shouldn't be ignoring the influence they had on the continental congress.

 

Usually when you're talking about 'founder intent' you're talking about a specific section of the Constitution, something like 'well regulated militia'. How the founders felt about sexuality or women voting isn't exactly relevant to that specific portion. Add to that the fact that some people wrote extensively on particular sections, while others were completely silent on the same, and singling out a few voices for that passage makes sense.

 

Yes, I agree. Usually, when that term is used in that manner, it is to describe that the "form or process" of government is not what the Constitution calls for. Although it seems to be becoming just a standard line for: "We don't agree, so we can invoke the Founders to refute it," regarding general policy matters.

What I will say is that the majority of the Founders, in a more general sense of the word, were not slave owners, since most of them were just fishermen, boat-builders, craftsmen, shop owners, artisans, farmers, who worked their own lands, etc. Owning a slave in those days was the equaivalent of owning a private airplane today. While 40 percent of the southern population were slaves, those slaves were owned by only a tiny percentage of the populaion, something in the 20 percent range of actual white people owned a slave in the South.

 

I think that there's too much being made here about "founder's intent". No conservative says that the Constitution cannot be amended because it would violate "founder's intent". To me, the phrase "founder's intent" most refers to reading the language in the Constitution to mean what the original writer intended it to mean. And furthermore, it seriously pi$$es me off when liberal justices change the meanings of words to suit their own ends, because once you start down that road, none of the words mean anything and the Constitution might as well not even exist.

To me, this is the terrible evilness at the heart of the liberal "living document" concept. The "living document" concept is an outright abuse of power ... no, a coup d'etat., a theft of power that belongs to those who have the actual responsibility and right to write, vote on, and pass new Constitutional amendments ... the only legitimate way of changing the content of the Constitution.


"Founder's intent" represents what the meaning of any particular language, say the First Amendment, meant when it was written, not what any of you, or I, or any of the sitting justices think that it "should" mean. And if one thinks that the meaning "should" be different than what it really IS, then pass a Constitutional amendment!!!


And BTW, everyone note that I'm not opposed to changes to the Constitution thru amendments. They are the only legitimate means by which changes are made to the Constitution.


=======

What an incredibly ignorant posting...

There was a plurality against slavery. But a plurality is not a majority. Furthermore, I'm not even sure that had their been a true majority that the Constitutional Convention would have banned slavery. Their goal was to write a document to form a nation of 13 states, not to hold a great big liberal Kumbaya (spelling probably wrong) festival. And note that those opposed to slavery did prevent the slave states from getting full representation for slaves ... a VERY misunderstood thing.

((The thing in the Constitution where slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person was not racist or whatever. It was created to prevent slave states from counting slaves as the equal of a free person for the purposes of determining representation in Congress. Hence, it reduced the power of the slave states. However, plenty of ignorant liberals just look at it as say "oh, the Constitution is racist cuz it counted slaves as 3/5 of a person" without understanding the real purpose.))

And even had their been a majority of delegates opposed to slavery, I severely doubt that they'd have passed an anti-slavery clause, because that would have caused the slave states to tell the non-slave states to go to hell right then and there. Period.

It's interesting and quite annoying to see comments like Drew's wherein he talks about how the intent of the Founders isn't relevent today or how they wouldn't understand things about today's society, and at the same time, he looks at the thoughts and actions of the Founders in their time thru his own modern sensibilities and is unable to understand the nature of what they were going thru. "Oh, the Founders were all such eeeeeevil people cuz they didn't support all of the things that we liberals (or even modern conservatives) support today." I'm sorry, but that's such ridiculous way of looking back at history.

Do you think that the anti-slavery people should have been willing to let the slave states go their own way back in the 1780's and form a smaller US comprised only of non-slave states? For that matter, I'm not so sure that they could have done that even then, cuz I'm not entirely sure how stratified (?) anti-slavery feelings were. (That is, were anti-slavery feelings in the North strong enough at the time to support such a policy stance?)

I'm sorry, but the Founder's leading concern seems to have been to form a single nation out of the 13 states, and that meant that some unsavory (to our modern sensibilities) compromises had to be made. And I don't think that it makes those Founders evil for doing the best they could.

---------- Added 0 hours, 17 minutes and 37 seconds later... ----------

I don't agree Chandos. I'm with NOG here... "Founder's intent" is all about the meaning of the written words in the Constitution, and that those words should mean what the writer meant them to mean, because once you start making any word mean what you want it to mean, you can make all words mean what you want them to mean... at which point, words have no meaning and the Constitution is meaning less.

For example... what if 5 justices suddenly decide that a "year" is 730 days long, not 365 days long? That'd make the 4 "year" term of a president twice as long as it currently is. What's to stop them from doing this is anyone can willy-nilly change the meaning of any word they so choose?

(Yes, an extreme example, but I used it because it was extremely clear and simple for the sake of the example...)

Always note that I do not oppose change to the Constitution. But those changes should be done thru the legitimate amendment process, not thru 5 unelected justices.

Also note that when change does go thru the legitimate amendment process, the nature of that process is such that amendments that do succeed almost always tend to have very broad support... whereas illegitimate (IMHO) "changes" caused by 5 unelected justices can be forced onto the People without any support whatsoever, with the possible result being years or decades of constant bickering and dissension over something being forced onto the People without their consent.

 

Well, we are talking only of Founder intent regarding the Constitution? And not any of the other documents? If we are only talking the Constitution we will have to go with the intent of those who were at the Convention, or those who championed the ratification of the Constitution. Perhaps the confusion over the term is that what is really meant is "constitutional intent, rather than the intent of the Founders? However, the term "Founder intent" has a much larger meaning for me than just the blueprint for government, or those specific founders who were at the Convention. And as you point out, even the true intent of the Founders at the Convention may have been compromised given more practical and pragmatic concerns, such as the issue of slavery, as you rightly point out.

It's not that the Constitution is a "living document," and I'm not sure I'm familiar with that concept. I guess maybe my "liberal credentials" are not in order, since I really don't recognize that concept. But I will make do with what I do know about it. That the first really large debate over the "intent of the Constitution" occurred in the very first adminstration. George Washington was the prez, and Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury.

As the story goes, Hamiltion wanted to create a National bank and have the federal government assume the debt of the states from the Revolution. But another cabinet member, Thomas Jefferson, objected. The thing here is that Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution, since he was not at the Convention. And he was never known to be really that keen on the original document as it was conceived in 1787, even suggesting a Bill of Rights to be added to the original document. But since he was not in Congress he could only suggest the notion, and James Madison, who was at the Convention, was the one who actually wrote the proposal for the orginal BoR.

Nevertheless, none of this stopped Jefferson from pointing out that the Constitution did not specifically allow for either of Hamilton's proposals, and that in fact, Hamilton was acting outside the "intent" of the Consitution. The interesting point here is that both Hamilton and Washington were at the Convention and had a hand in crafting the document and Jefferson was not. What Hamilton argued was that the Constituion did not specifially prevent the government from forming the bank. And so even though the Constitution did not specifially say that the government could create a national bank, it also didn't say that the government could not create one. Hamilton argued more than just that. There were other legal fine points in the arguments, but Jefferson really chose the constitutional issue, and defined the Constitution's intent by its most narrowest definition. Why? Because he wanted to limit the scope and power of the Federal Government. Hamilton argued that the Constitution did not really prevent the federal government from doing what is needed to. Why? Because Hamilton wanted to expand the scope and power of the Federal govenment. Does any of this sound familar? It should.

Hamilton's argument carried the day, and Washington sided with Hamilton in the end and Hamilton got his bank (also by cutting a personal deal with Jefferson) and the original argument never ended. So the question remains: Which Founder, and which intent? Take your choice. Also, take a look at the comparison made here:

http://www.mrburnett.net/jeffvalex.html

Two different Founders; Two different intents.

---------- Added 7 hours, 16 minutes and 45 seconds later... ----------

I have some time to spend on this point now, which I did not have before. I'm not sure what you are saying here. The nation was not "founded" in 1787-88, when the Constitution was crafted and ratified. My point is that the nation was founded in 1776 and the founding document is the Declaration of Independence, as a starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

The Constitution replaced another founding document, the Articles of Conferderation, which was crafted in 1777, by the Second Continental Congress, as Drew pointed out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Continental_Congress

So we had a document that declared us an Independent nation from England, and which states the principles on which the nation is founded, and we had a Constitution, which fashioned a system of government for the states and created a "functioning union." You can find this same reference in the Gettysburg Address by Lincoln, which was given in 1863 after the Battle at Gettysburg:

See? 87 years from 1863 is 1776, not 1787.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address

As Drew points out, "the original Founders" were at the 2nd Continental Congress, not the Constitutional Convention of 1787. However, many of the same "Founders" were also at the Convention, such as Ben Franklin and George Washington. So who are "the Founding Fathers?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

So a "Founder" could be anyone from an ordinary farmer, who carried a rifle in the Continental Army, to George Washington, the first President of the new government. When we speak of "Founder's intent" we should be clear that we are speaking of the right founders and what they actually founded. Otherwise there will be obvious confusion.

I have to take it to mean that you and NOG see the Constitution as THE founding document and that those at the Convention are the "founders" you are referring to in both your posts? And further, that their "intent" is a specific meaning of the document itself: the "actual text" of the document. These guys are often referred to as "The Framers," which helps to keep these matters clear. For instance, Patrick Henry is an important Founder to many of us. But:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry

So he is an important founder, whose "intent" was not the same as James Madison's (the Father of the Constitution), so it can be stated that the founders disgreed on some important points. In fact, that particular founder saw the Constitution as a betrayal of the Revolution! I don't pretend to be an expert on Founding history, or a specialist on the Constitution, just someone who has an interest in early American History and the Revolution, and who also has a particular interest in the 7 key founders according to Richard Morris, the pantheon, so to speak. However, there are many important founders, and there are a number of critical founding documents that reveal what the intent was of these Founders as individuals. That is somethng different than what they achieved collectively.

DMC made a great point, that these gentlemen were statesmen, and even though they disagreed over some fundamental points, they compromised enough, and worked together, to fashion a working system of government that comes close to the original principles in the Declaration. It did not happen all at once, and my point earlier was that they knew it did not, but over time we have progressively moved closer to those principles.

Crucis - I don't recall mentioning any justices, or the judicial system in any of my posts, so I don't know what you are disagreeing with me about. Unless it is because I don't beleive that the Constitution is the only founding document.

The First Amendment IS an amendment, it was added after the original Convention. It's part of the Bill of Rights.

What did the Framer's of the Constitution intend? They could not agree one what it meant.

See? Not even the "Founders" could agree on the 1st or 10th Amendments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

 

Typically, 'Founder intent' is used when talking about the Constitution, implying 'what did the Founders intend when they wrote this passage'. I guess you could apply it to anything any 'Founder' wrote, but it's most commonly used regarding the Constitution. To determine this intent, other writings from the same Founders are very valuable.

Given that I'm honestly not sure how liberal you really are at times (do you consider yourself a liberal libertarian?), I'm honestly not surprised. I don't think the 'living document' has been terribly popular with libertarians. By the way: Living Document. It's apparently not just a US idea, either.

The issue of a 'living document' and disregarding 'Founder intent' is in re-defining words and terms, or even infering ideas behind whole passages, by applying modern standards to them. Since the 'modern standards' for Hamilton and Jefferson in front of Washington were the same as the 'modern standards' Washington and Hamilton and others used to write the definition, I don't think it really relates.

Typically, the Founder or Founders that contributed to the passage, or that wrote extensively on the ideas outside of the Constitution, are considered.

Considering we're talking about Supreme Court decisions, and that the DoI isn't considered a legal document in the US (i.e. you can't sue someone for violating your right to pursue happyness), I think limiting the discussion to the Constitution does have merit. I would expand the idea of the 'Founders', however, not just to those who wrote the document, but also to those who influenced those writers, where we know anything. In that way, Jefferson's intent is almost as important as Washington's or Madison's, even though Jefferson wasn't there for the writing of the Constitution. His ideas and writings certainly had some influence on others.

The question at hand is whether you thing the 'moving closer' should be achieved through amendments or through judicial review.

Again, this came up in the context of Judicial Review and it's impacts on how the Constitution is interpreted, so that's probably where it came from.

Ah, but it was still written by the 'Founders'. While the term 'Founder intent' may loose it's meaning as you move away from the generation that actually wrote our founding documents, the idea of 'determine the intent of the people who wrote X' applies even to the amendments written a generation or more later. It's not 'Founder intent' any more, but the intent of the authors is still relevant.

 

By whom? Historians? Politicians? Political scientsts? Typically, the correct word is "Framer," not Founder, because it causes too much confusion with those who are trying to be accurate about such statements. The Constitution is a collective document, although done in secret, Madison kept notes of the many arguments in its crafting.

NOG - I appreciated the link, but as it pointed out, it is a personal opinion, contains weasel words, lacks citations and is vague in some spots. I am familiar with the term "original intent," though, as opposed to "Living document."

From a personal standpoint I agree with Jefferson, and the remarks Jefferson made regarding the Constitution and how he approached it as president. Although he complained about Hamilton, notice he had no problems with the Louisiana Purchase which he made outside the powers of the Constitution.

That WAS the argument, intent versus what's actually in the document. Jefferson argued that no such power is in the "text" of the document to specifically allow Hamilton to craft his bank. Hamilton argued that it didn't have to be there, only that there was nothing to prevent him from doing so. No one is "defining" anything. The term "living document" is not relevant to anything here.

Ok, so you are speaking of something different. I did not even consider the Supreme Court as a part of the Revolution itself. The SC has its own unique history. And I never heard a Supreme Court ruling mentioned in the posts, at least not a specific one.

Actually it WAS a legal document, passed by the Continental Congress in 1776. I don't really give a flip if you can "sue somebody" with it or not, it's still a founding document and it was a legal one. Are you actually arguing that the DoI is NOT a founding document? I certainly hope not because I don't have time for foolishness. There are far more important things I can be doing with my time.

I don't recall asking that question or attempting to answer it. Are you asking it, or what?

I don't recall a question of "Judicial Review," that I was concerned with it. To answer that, you will have to look closely at the history of judicial review and the Founding and evolution of the Supreme Court.

Which "Founders" do you mean? The BoR was not added at the Constitutional Convention, but 4 years later by Congress. I take it you don't mean "the Framers" of the Constitution, but those who were in the US Congress of 1791. Some of them may also have been at the Convention, such as James Madison, but many were not. It was Thomas Jefferson who first suggested the Bill of Rights and he was at neither. But he had helped the French write a Bill of Rights while he was in France. So what's you point, in regards to the "Founders," or is it the "Framers," or just the Congress you are referring to?

We could go all the way back to the Magna Carta if you wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

 

NOG - Piecing together your cut-up statements, can I believe that you are essentially saying:

There is a complaint that someone judges (or politicians?) ignore what the "Framers wrote into the Constitution."

It appears that there is confusion over the term "intended," since it seems to have interchangeable terms that are both general and technical, so I use the term "wrote into" rather than "intended" to be more accurate (especially regarding the actual text of the document). At least that is my take, even though you have ignored my suggestions that we use "Framers" when speaking to the issue of the Constitution, I still intend to use it myself in describing those who were actually at the Convention and not the Founders in the more general sense of the term. While you bring up Jefferson, who was not at the Convention, but influenced Madison, who was, John Adams was not at the Convention and he was an important "Founder."

That would be a far cry from saying that they ignore "the intent of the Founders." Those are two different things. And we should all be honest enough to affirm that.

 

Typically politicians, judges, constitutional lawyers, etc. At least, as I understand it.

I think you're missing the point. In 'Founder Intent' arguements, the 'intent' and what's actually in the document are usually on the same side. The arguement is them versus 'The Founding Fathers never forsaw the invention of the internet, so X should be drastically reinterpreted this way.'

Founding, yes, but not upheld in US courts. If it were, every imprisonment would be a violation of the right to pursue happiness and a violation of the right to liberty. And, of course, the Death Penalty would be dead in the water, what with that 'right to life' bit. The DoI is more of a 'declaration of principles' of 'statement of faith' style document: something to guide us, but not a set of rigid laws or rights.

It's the issue of the debate between the 'Living Document' side and the static document side. On a side note, though, I would like your opinion on it.

Sort of, though not exactly. Think of Seperation of Church and State. There is no hard seperation in the Constitution, or any of it's amendments. It is rather an application and extension of the 1st amendment's protections of (and from) religion. The Founding Fathers (framers and others) certainly intended to create a society where the government couldn't mandate worship of X or ban worship of Y, but did they intend a society where teachers wouldn't be allowed to pray in public schools? Did they intend a society where all mention of God is removed from governement offices? Did they intend a society where Mother Teressa couldn't get a postage stamp? Maybe, maybe not (I'm not assuming an answer to any of these), but there are those who insist on extending the principle to that level whether it was the intent or not. Those who oppose them commonly do so with the 'Founder Intent' arguement: that this (whatever this may be at the time) isn't what the Founders had in mind when they wrote X piece of the Constitution (usually including the Bill of Rights, considering how quickly it followed).

A similar arguement has been waged over Roe v Wade. The Founding Fathers certainly never intended a constitutional protection of abortion, did they? Well, probably not (at least, from what I know), but some Judges saw room for it in the Constitution today (well, sort of today).

 

This is a prime example of why I think the question of "founder intent" is actually detrimental to real and honest debate. The founding fathers couldn't have intended either a constitutional ban, constitutional protection, or constitutional ambivalence to abortion because that particular dilemma wasn't even on the map in the late 1700's. Since our founders are all dead, we have no way of asking them for their opinion now, either.

 

I have never run across the term in the numerous history books on the subject. Nor did I hear it in any of my college classes. The term was always "original intent."

Again, you are missing a major point, you mean the "Framers of the Constitution." "The Founding Fathers" are in a different category all together. There is no such thing as "Founder Intent" except in the broadest sense of the word in which the Constitution would only play a portion of the entire intent of the Founders as a generation. However, Original Intent:

I have to say I agree with this approach, but only to a narrow extent. But I don't see a lot of problems with it. I really tend to side with the DoI as the most important founding document, so I tend to look for connections and agreement between it and the other documents, including the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent

I tend to be largely a Jeffersonian, so I agree with his approach to the Constitution. This is from your link:

I think Jefferson was sensible in his approach, both as a Founder, a Signer, and also as the Third President.

 

I'm just using the term I've heard. Original Intent does sound better, but also more technical (i.e. it could be applied to any document from any era for any purpose of analysis). "Founder Intent" was probably devised to infer the sacrosanct suggestion that the Founding Fathers supported (or would have supported if asked) X position.

Again, this seems to suggest an opposition between intent and the actual wording. This is not the purpose to which the term "Founder Intent" is applied.

Jefferson had the distinct advantage of:

Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.

Actually, it was an option at the time (and much further back), just not a very safe option. I have no idea if any of the Founding Fathers, Framers, or whatever ever wrote anything on it, though.