Interpreting Our US Constitution

                                          

In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted".


Textualism is a mode of interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of the text of a legal document. Textualism usually emphasizes how the terms in the Constitution would be understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms appear.

US CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS:

1. James Madison wrote the Constitution in 1787
2. Of the 55 Convention delegates, about 25 owned slaves. Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin (a former slave-owner) and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in a slave colony in the British West Indies) became members of antislavery societies.
3. The Northern delegates and others opposed to slavery wanted to count only free persons, including free blacks in the North and South. ... Minimizing the percentage of the slave population counted for apportionment reduced the political power of slaveholding states.
4. Of our FOUNDING FATHERS:  Samuel Adams, John Adams, & Thomas Paine NEVER OWNED SLAVES
5. Slave/Slavery was only mentioned indirectly in the US CONSTITUTION
6. THE US CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 17 1787...
7. When did the US get independence from Great Britain?  JULY 4, 1776...
8. It took 11 years for ALL THE STATES to RATIFY the US CONSTITUTION
9. All US SLAVES were freed January 1, 1863
10. In 1870, the 15th Amendment was ratified to prohibit states from denying a male citizen the right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude." "Black suffrage" in the United States in the aftermath of the American Civil War explicitly referred to the voting rights of black men only.
11.  In 1920, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution gave WOMEN the right to vote

QUESTIONS:   

1. Is it FAIR to use the concepts of textualism and and originalism when interpreting the US CONSTITUTION since our BLACK population was not given RIGHTS until 75+ years later? 
2. Is it fair to use the concepts of textualism and originalism when interpreting the US CONSTITUTION since it was UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME OF THE WRITTING of the US Constitution that half of the delegate to the Constitutional Convention did not own slaves and were struggling with the slavery issue?
3. Is it fair to use the concepts of textualism and originalism when interpreting the US CONSTITUTION when it comes to understanding how our Founding Father felt towards women when it comes to interpreting what rights do women actually have under the US Constitution?
4. Is it fair to use the concepts of textualism and originalism when interpreting the US CONSTITUTION when it come time to decide whether or not we should as nation whether or not we should regulate firearms, especially since our Founding Father had just formed a new country and had not yet built up a military or a National Guard?

Personal Comments:

It simply does not seem fair or logical for our Court System to use how our Founding Fathers were thinking in their minds and how the words they used were interpreted back in 1787 to decide ALL ISSUES coming before the courts because there have been substantial changes like gun violence, abortion, discrimination, and equal rights with which our FOUNDING FATHERS never had to deal with at the time the Constitution was written, therefore their mental thoughts and word usages seems rather pointless and meaningless in today's world.