A Win For Originalism…And America

[PoliticalChic]

You're post are lying BS by RWNJ's that think their idea's are "originalist".

Gaslighting only works are morons.

Put a little effort into a post.....if you are capable of such.


Here's how it's done:

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

Can you provide several of the books that have informed your geopolitical outlook????



Book: a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.




Or....you can default to your usual "...duhhhhh......."

 

[Smokin' OP]

Put a little effort into a post.....if you are capable of such.


Here's how it's done:

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

View attachment 662876



Can you provide several of the books that have informed your geopolitical outlook????



Book: a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.




Or....you can default to your usual "...duhhhhh......."

What about the 2nd amendment?
You retards keep ignoring "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Just as the courts did..............NOT originalist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What about the 2nd amendment?
You retards keep ignoring "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Just as the courts did..............NOT originalist.

You're back with another vapid post????


Didn't we just agree that you're a moron??????



Here:
Put a little effort into a post.....if you are capable of such.


Here's how it's done:

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

Can you provide several of the books that have informed your geopolitical outlook????



Book: a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.




Or....you can default to your usual "...duhhhhh......."

 

[PoliticalChic]

What about the 2nd amendment?
You retards keep ignoring "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Just as the courts did..............NOT originalist.

You r****s keep ignoring "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".


We already found you to be an imbecile.....but I can't help rubbing it in: militia:


Militia.


. “…well regulated militia…” Consider the sentence “Being a fisherman, Joe needs a boat.” Does this mean that Joe should only buy a boat if he fishes for a living? The reference to a militia is a reason why the people “When the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1858 (Legal scholar and law professor at Columbia College)

In the Constitution, Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by enacting copyright and patent laws (Article 1, Section 8). Would you argue that every copyright work or patented invention must promote scientific progress and useful arts?



1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.



George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)



The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)



The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.



Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)



[10 U.S. Code § 311 - Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority]

have a right to arms, but it is not the only reason.



b. “…well-regulated…” Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground)





How many times do perfect strangers walk up, point at you, and laugh???????????

 

[PoliticalChic]

An embarrassment of riches!!!!!!!!!

The Right Scoop BREAKING: New York Supreme Court strikes down NYC law granting voting rights to non-citizens​ The high court in New York has just struck down a New York City law that allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections: GOTHAMIST – New York City’s law extending voting rights in municipal elections to noncitizens who are legally allowed to live, work and go to school in the five boroughs violates the New York State Constitution, according to a ruling issued by Justice Ralph Porzio in Richmond County State Supreme Court on Monday." BREAKING: New York Supreme Court strikes down NYC law granting voting rights to non-citizens The high court in New York has just struck down a New York City law that allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections: GOTHAMIST – New York City’s law extending voting rights in municipal … therightscoop.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

".... there were three SCOTUS decisions last week — one on First Amendment religious freedom, one on the affirmation of Second Amendment freedom, and one on restoring protection for the must vulnerable and precious among us, babies before birth.

For those decisions, we owe a debt of gratitude to Sen. Mitch McConnell and former President Donald Trump, who paved the path to these decisions."

Three Historic SCOTUS Decisions on Liberty and Life

Democrats have not been this angry since Republicans freed their slaves, and those protesting for "women's rights" today couldn't define a woman yesterday.

patriotpost.us

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[PoliticalChic]

.....this is the etymology of fetus....

fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring,"
fetus | Origin and meaning of fetus by Online Etymology Dictionary



It is a baby, and a human being.

And Democrats demand the ability to slaughter it......even well after birth:
Infanticide now mainstream Democrat policy.

1. "Rhode Island and Vermont Democrats Propose Radical Abortion Bills"
Rhode Island and Vermont Democrats Propose Radical Abortion Bills





2. "Democratic governor who believes elderly have a ‘duty to die’ calls pro-life initiative ‘a monster’
The former [Democrat] governor of Colorado, who has expressed support for population control and said that the elderly have a “duty to die,” has come out against a state amendment that would recognize the rights of unborn children, calling the pro-life measure “a monster.”
Democratic governor who believes elderly have a ‘duty to die’ calls pro-life initiative ‘a monster’ — The Rights Writer


The Democrats are true to their forebears:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky





3. The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.



4. The Democrat governor of Virginia agreed with the bill for infanticide.



5. "New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"

New York abortion law changes allow infanticide



6. "Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"

Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats

 

[Smokin' OP]

You're back with another vapid post????


Didn't we just agree that you're a moron??????



Here:
Put a little effort into a post.....if you are capable of such.


Here's how it's done:

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

Can you provide several of the books that have informed your geopolitical outlook????

WTF?
I don't need a book to tell me how to think, retards do.

Book: a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.

And you bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Bet you bought Trump's picture book too.

Or....you can default to your usual "...duhhhhh......."

The Federalist Society?
WOW.

 

[Smokin' OP]

You r****s keep ignoring "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".


We already found you to be an imbecile.....but I can't help rubbing it in: militia:


Militia.


. “…well regulated militia…” Consider the sentence “Being a fisherman, Joe needs a boat.” Does this mean that Joe should only buy a boat if he fishes for a living?

WTF?
Joe doesn't need a boat to be a fisherman.
He doesn't "fish" with his hands, he does need a pole or a net.

The reference to a militia is a reason why the people “When the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1858 (Legal scholar and law professor at Columbia College)
Opinion.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
That's called a prerequisite.

pre·req·ui·site
[prēˈrekwəzət]

NOUN

1. 
   
2. a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist.

You just got though repeating "For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning"

WHICH, you promptly 'forgot", because it didn't promote your narrative.

In the Constitution, Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by enacting copyright and patent laws (Article 1, Section 8). Would you argue that every copyright work or patented invention must promote scientific progress and useful arts?

Another WTF?
Doesn't mention ANYTHING about MUST.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, known as the Copyright Clause. Under the Copyright Clause, Congress has the power, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.

You messed up the dates, and of course, wrote only the part that fit your narrative.

The second Militia Act of 1792 was passed on May 8, 1792, and provided for the organization of state militias and the conscription of every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45.

Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside.

So, what if a person was never approached by a captain or commanding officer?

ANOTHER prerequisite, republican ignore.


Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack.
Exemptions applied to some occupations, including congressmen, stagecoach drivers and ferryboatmen.

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)



The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

Another opinion, never enacted.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President's call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.

That means if there isn't any call for a militia, by the government, then a militia is effectively disbanded.
No emergencies, no active militia's.
Just like today's National Guard, you're a part of it but not active unless called upon.
So, you are not required to have a weapon when not active.
Matter of fact, in the NG, you cannot take your weapon home with you.

The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

Implied?
NO, it didn't.

The defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted on charges of unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from Oklahoma to Arkansas an unregistered double barrel 12-gauge shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.S. § 1132c et seq. ("Act").

At trial in federal district court, the defendants filed a demurrer to the indictment alleging that the Act was not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the states and so was unconstitutional.
Defendants further argued that the Act violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court held that the section of the Act that made it unlawful to transport an unregistered firearm in interstate commerce was unconstitutional as violative of the Second Amendment.
It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment. The government took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.

So, was a sawed off 12 gauge shotgun approved for use in the militia they belonged to?

Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)



[10 U.S. Code § 311 - Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority]

have a right to arms, but it is not the only reason.



b. “…well-regulated…” Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground)

YES, it does.

Either the state or federal government, local authority has to regulate or command certain rules for a militia.


The original Constitution pertaining to “the Militia of the several States”[1] and the Second and Fifth Amendments all speak with one clear and consistent voice, and notwithstanding that they are all parts of the selfsame “supreme law of the Land”[2]—which “[t]he Senators and Representatives [in Congress]” as well as “the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support”[3]—the Constitution’s commands remain unfulfilled.

Otherwise, the people in a self-proclaimed "militia" could be a force, that is against their local, state and federal governments, as in overthrowing them

How many times do perfect strangers walk up, point at you, and laugh???????????

I couldn't imagine all the people that laugh at you, Q NUT.
You nutjobs are too stupid, to know......................you're stupid..............and don't care.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So they are against women to vote, own land and it didn't say a word about abortion. The women are treated like 2nd class citizens, women were raped and incest was the norm. A bunch of white men wrote the constitution and they couldn't describe what a women was, she was lower than dirt.

Biden's SCOTUS pick must identify as a white guy, because she couldn't what a woman was either

 

[PoliticalChic]

WTF?
I don't need a book to tell me how to think, retards do.

And you bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Bet you bought Trump's picture book too.

The Federalist Society?
WOW.

You are a moron, clearly both uneducated and lacking mental accumen.

On the bright side, you are eligible for the "Democrat of the Month" award.

 

[Smokin' OP]

You are a moron, clearly both uneducated and lacking mental accumen.

Sure, Q NUT.

Your mental "Accumen" consist of regurgitating RWNJ lies.
AND you got burned.

On the bright side, you are eligible for the "Democrat of the Month" award.

Yours is being mailed, nut job.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sure, Q NUT.

Your mental "Accumen" consist of regurgitating RWNJ lies.
AND you got burned.

Yours is being mailed, nut job.

View attachment 663205

I used to think that you were a gibbering idiot. Now I have a much lower opinion of you.

You probably lose arguments to inanimate objects.

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[playtime]

Did you know that Republicans gave women the right to vote?

uh-huh. did you know that the 7-2 decision that gave females full personhood was 7-2; & the majority that granted it were (R)s?

lol ... you & yer ilk are the actual RINOs.

So you're a government school grad????

so you're in favor of bigger & more intrusive gov'ment????

 

[playtime]

What about the 2nd amendment?
You retards keep ignoring "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Just as the courts did..............NOT originalist.

 

[playtime]

6. On Sunday, July 29, 2012, Justice Scalia was interviewed by Bryan Lamb on C-Span. The Justice has a new book out, “ Reading the Law.”

He explained that, first, he was a “Textualist,” meaning that the foremost guidance for judges must be the actual words, the text, of the Constitution.

Beyond that, he is an “Originalist,” meaning that the words must be read with an understanding of what they meant at the time the Constitution was written.



Consider the alternative: the rules/laws under which Americans must live would be changed with each new administration, each new whim or wish, and, with Democrats…..each new insanity:
Men can be women, you can kill newborns months after birth, legal hearings would allow only one side to speak, those with different views could be jailed.


Just imagine a Joe Biden re-writing the Constitution.

soooooooooooooo................ where does it say women can vote in that there constitutional text. 'eh?

the constitution is a living document.

 

[PoliticalChic]

soooooooooooooo................ where does it say women can vote on that there constitutional text. 'eh?

the constitution is a living document.

The position of an ignorant individual....you.


“Americans live under an ever-growing administrative state, in which distant bureaucrats centralize legislative, executive, and judicial power. States and localities are increasingly overpowered by a growing federal government that transgresses the Constitution’s original limits. The Constitution, we’re told by the progressive-minded, is a “living, breathing” document that allows for such updating in the modern age. On the other side, originalists and textualists argue that the Constitution’s meaning is stable, that its words retain the meaning they possessed when they were written.



Starting in the 1950s, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren began discovering rights and powers in the Constitution never previously identified…. in accordance with what the justices labeled the “penumbras” of other constitutional rights.



The Constitution was never intended—either by those who wrote it or by those who ratified it—to have the effect given it by the Warren Court. “A constitution that is viewed as only what the judges say it is no longer is a constitution in the true sense,” said attorney general Edwin Meese in a landmark 1985 speech to the American Bar Association. Words have meaning, Meese said, and judges can discern those meanings. Judges will always have predispositions, but this can’t mean that anything goes. The Reagan administration in which he served, Meese promised, would “endeavor to resurrect the original meaning of the constitutional provisions and statutes as the only reliable guide for judgment.”



…originalists emphasized the “original public meaning” of a constitutional provision that those who ratified the Constitution would have understood it to have. Neither the secret personal intentions of the individual Founders, nor their collective intentions, nor even the intentions of those who participated in the ratifying conventions matter under this approach. All that matters is how people understand the written words of the Constitution at the time it was adopted.



To maintain the integrity of the Constitution over time, Yale law professor Jack Balkin writes, “we must preserve the meaning of the words that constitute the framework . . . . If we do not attempt to preserve legal meaning over time, then we will not be following the written Constitution as our plan but instead will be following a different plan.” The content of all communication is fixed at the time of its utterance.



Take the example of a letter written in the twelfth century that uses the word “deer.” As Georgetown professor Lawrence Solum has pointed out, today, “deer” refers to a four-legged mammal of the cervidae family, but in Middle English, the word “deer” meant a beast or animal of any kind. Therefore, we would wrongly read “deer” in a letter written in the Middle Ages to mean what we think of as deer today.



…take an example from the Constitution itself. Article IV, Section Four states that America shall protect every state in the union “against domestic Violence.” The modern-day semantic meaning of the phrase “domestic violence,” Solum notes, is “intimate partner abuse,” “battering,” or “wife-beating”; it is the “physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse that takes place in the context of an intimate relationship, including marriage.” Yet the Framers used the term “domestic violence” to refer to insurrection or rebellion. It would be a linguistic mistake to interpret this clause of the Constitution as referring to “domestic violence” as we understand it today.



“In the exposition of laws, and even of Constitutions,” James Madison wrote in an 1826 letter, “how many important errors may be produced by mere innovations in the use of words and phrases, if not controulable [sic] by a recurrence to the original and authentic meaning attached to them!” As Madison saw it, we shouldn’t let “the effect of time in changing the meaning of words and phrases’ justify ‘new constructions’ of written constitutions and laws.”



[Law professor Gary] Lawson explains, [the Constitution] is but a recipe for government: “As a recipe of sorts that is clearly addressed to an external audience, the Constitution’s meaning is its original public meaning. Other approaches to interpretation are simply wrong. Interpreting the Constitution is no more difficult, and no different in principle, than interpreting a late-eighteenth-century recipe for fried chicken.” The Constitution was addressed to a public audience at a certain time, and its meaning was fixed at that time.


In Federalist 37, James Madison described both the power and the limitations of human language and the human mind, and how those limitations affect the writing and interpretation of a constitution:

All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications. Besides the obscurity arising from the complexity of objects, and the imperfection of the human faculties, the medium through which the conceptions of men are conveyed to each other adds a fresh embarrassment. The use of words is to express ideas. Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them. But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas. Hence it must happen that however accurately objects may be discriminated in themselves, and however accurately the discrimination may be considered, the definition of them may be rendered inaccurate by the inaccuracy of the terms in which it is delivered. And this unavoidable inaccuracy must be greater or less, according to the complexity and novelty of the objects defined. When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated."

The Case for Originalism

Adhering to the original public meaning of the Constitution doesn’t mean that there is no role for interpretation.

www.city-journal.org

 

[Smokin' OP]

soooooooooooooo................ where does it say women can vote on that there constitutional text. 'eh?

the constitution is a living document.

With 27 amendments.