< Back

Debate: Originalism, or Rationalism

Main Discussion Topics

The Debate Proposition

The formal proposition being debated: "Constitutional originalist opposition to the war in Iran is rationalism"
The guest, Michael, defends the proposition; Michael Liebowitz argues against it
The debate grew out of a heated Facebook exchange between the two
Both participants are Objectivists and approach the question through the lens of Ayn Rand's philosophy

Originalism vs. the Living Document

The guest opens by rejecting both strict constitutional originalism and the "living, breathing document" approach
He characterizes the living document view as subjectivist: "There are no true facts, there are no true principles and that things change with the times"
He argues originalism, while producing better judges historically than the living document approach, suffers from its own flaw: clinging to text without proper contextual application
He cites Antonin Scalia as a leading proponent of originalism but contends even Scalia's adherents look at context when applying law to modern cases
He frames strict originalism as rooted in intrinsicism, an epistemological error from an Objectivist standpoint

Michael's Defense of Originalism

Michael clarifies he does not follow original intent but rather original meaning: what the text meant to the people who ratified it
He argues this position is not rationalistic because every principle he defends is derived from sense experience and history: "Every single principle I laid out to you is derived from reality by the application of reason"
He quotes Ayn Rand from the Objectivist Ethics to make the case that an immoral means invalidates the end, tying it directly to unconstitutional war-making: "An immoral means invalidates the end. The principle here is in order to be free, we have to have a government that's restrained by law, by written law, by the Constitution"
He quotes Ayn Rand from the Roots of War: "Which type of government is more likely to plunge a country into war? A government of limited powers bound by constitutional restrictions or an unlimited government open to the pressure of any group with war-like interest or ideologies?"
He quotes Madison's Federalist No. 51 on the necessity of restraining government through constitutional structure
He traces constitutional principles back through empirical history: Persian, Babylonian, Roman, and Ottoman empires, through Stalin and Hitler, to the present day with Trump, demonstrating through experience that unchecked governments violate rights

The Iran War and Congressional War Powers

Michael argues Trump went to war with Iran without congressional approval in violation of Article One, Section Eight, which grants Congress the power to declare war, and Article Two, Section Two, which makes the president commander in chief only when forces are called into service
He contends it was not a genuine emergency: "If you've got time to announce you're putting the Navy over there, and you've got time to negotiate, and you've got time to do interviews and send your people out there, you have time to go to Congress"
The guest counters that governments operate through many informal processes beyond formal congressional votes, including consultation with generals and committees, and that framing it as "Congress or dictatorship" is a false binary
The guest argues Iran has been a threat for decades, with thousands of deaths attributable directly or indirectly to the regime, and frames the threat as more than sufficiently imminent to justify action

The Pearl Harbor Hypothetical

The guest presents a thought experiment: what if Congress had failed to declare war after Pearl Harbor, with Nazi Germany marching across Europe?
Michael initially says that if Congress were that suicidal, the country would not be worth defending, and that he would not support going to war without a declaration
Michael later clarifies his position: he acknowledges that during the constitutional convention, the war powers language was changed from "make war" to "declare war" precisely to allow the executive to respond to an immediate attack, and that Pearl Harbor may well have met that threshold constitutionally
He insists his initial response was not rationalistic even if imprecise: "A person can be wrong without being a rationalist. I can come to a wrong conclusion and not be a rationalist"
Michael draws a sharp distinction between the Pearl Harbor scenario and Iran: "It was not an imminent threat"

What Rationalism Actually Is

Michael defines rationalism as the belief that there is knowledge independent of sensory experience, ideas detached from reality, citing Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza as examples
He challenges the guest to demonstrate which of his principles are not derived from experience: "Rationalism is the idea that you have knowledge independent of experience. You don't cite human experience and human facts as you're going along a chain and then say, oh no, this is rationalism"
The guest eventually concedes that Michael is not a rationalist in general, while maintaining that in this particular case, his approach to originalism struck him as rationalistic given how the argument appeared on Facebook
Michael pushes back on the idea that a conclusion alone can reveal a rationalistic method: "Rationalism is a method, it's not a conclusion"

Civil Debate Among Liberty Advocates

Both participants reflect on how the exchange on Facebook became heated and at points personal
Michael expresses frustration that those who claim to champion reason resort to insults rather than argument: "For three days now I've been insulted across social media by various people who claim to be the pinnacles of rationality, objectivist, and every time met with an argument, instead of saying okay here's why I think you're wrong, they say you got shit for brains"
He contrasts this with the previous day's debate with Jim Valliant: "I disagreed a lot with Jim Valliant on this issue yesterday. We had a great debate. I never once thought he was being dishonest. I never once thought he was evading. I thought he was wrong. And that's okay"
The guest apologizes for his tone and both acknowledge that passion for ideas is not the same as justification for insults
Michael closes on a broader principle: "Intelligent, honest people can disagree with one another"

Lysander Spooner and the Question of Constitutional Legitimacy

Michael closes the episode by posing a question for the audience to engage with on YouTube
He presents the Lysander Spooner argument, paraphrased: either the Constitution allows for the government we currently have, or it was incapable of stopping it; in either case, it is unfit to exist
He frames this not as an endorsement but as a genuine question worth answering for those who care about liberty and constitutional governance

Notable Quotes

Michael on the necessity of constitutional restraint: "You do not save your civilization by undercutting its fundamental documents."

Michael on principled reasoning vs. rationalism: "Every single principle I laid out to you is derived from reality by the application of reason. Individual rights, the need of a constitution, separation of powers, all of it."

Michael on Trump's failure to go to Congress: "If you've got time to announce you're putting the Navy over there, and you've got time to negotiate, and you've got time to do interviews and send your people out there, you have time to go to Congress."

Michael on Ayn Rand and immoral means: "An immoral means invalidates the end. The principle here is in order to be free, we have to have a government that's restrained by law, by written law, by the Constitution."

Michael on disagreement within the liberty movement: "Intelligent, honest people can disagree with one another. I disagree a lot with Jim Valliant on this issue. We had a great debate. I never once thought he was being dishonest. I never once thought he was evading. I thought he was wrong. And that's okay."

Michael on what originalism actually requires: "If you're going to have law, it needs to be knowable in advance. It can't be subject to change by the whim of judges. Human beings need to know how to act ahead of time, and that also is learned from experience."

Key Themes

Constitutional war powers and the separation of powers
Originalism vs. contextual constitutional interpretation
Rationalism as a philosophical method and how it is misapplied as an accusation
The Iran war and whether the threat justified bypassing Congress
How to disagree honestly and productively within the liberty movement
The empirical foundations of constitutional governance

Capitalist Thought of the Day

"Debates are good, passion is good. We should be very grateful that we live in a somewhat free society where we are able to engage in free discourse without coming to blows or satisfying these disagreements in some other way. That is something very valuable. And my question, which I want you to go and answer, is: was Lysander Spooner correct? Spooner famously said, paraphrasing, either the Constitution allows for the government we currently have, or it was incapable of stopping it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. Who thinks that is true? Who thinks it is accurate? Please go to YouTube and answer it. Till tomorrow, folks. Check your premises." - Michael