Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

[Tom Paine 1949]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[JLW]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, it does apply to your phone records. That's why the government has to get a warrant to access them.

Not exactly.

Cell Phone Privacy and Warrant Requirements - FindLaw

Cell phone privacy and warrant requirements are tied to the Fourth Amendment, but this is an area of law that has changed with the advancement of new technology. Learn about this and more at FindLaw's Criminal Rights section.

criminal.findlaw.com

Suffice to say I don’t think the founders had a discernible opinion on whether data from your cellphone pinging GPS satellites is considered your papers or not.

 

[Taz]

Her whiny voice should automatically disqualify her.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

With a name like “John Law“ I am hesitant to disagree with you on this point. I do agree that “Originalism” has become a buzzword for the right in the culture wars, used as a front for reactionary interpretation of law by corporate conservatives, cultural traditionalists and know-nothing populists.

But as I understand things there is not a clean distinction, as many party partisans would have us believe, between “Originalist“ and “Living Constitution” judicial interpretation theories. “Living Constitution” thinkers are mostly interested in describing the actual history and sociology behind changing interpretations. Only a tiny minority have tried to escalate this into a working philosophy to guide judges in their task of deciding “impartially” everyday cases of law.

I think Democrats, Liberals and progressives need to be careful not to overreach here. Lincoln’s insistence that proper interpretation of the Constitution rejected the early abolitionist concept that the document as written was a “slaveowner’s Constitution” endorsing slavery (an idea also forcefully promoted by Southern slaveowners) is a case in point.

But I agree that to ignorant partisans and now even to “The Federalist Society,” the tag word “Originalism” pushes the conversation in a “conservative” corporatist direction — though corporations are not even mentioned in the original Constitution, or even in any subsequent amendments.

 

[Nostra]

I don't have to, I know what it says. Answer the question.

It does not. It says persons.

Keep reading.

You should have looked it up. I don’t think you know as much as you think. The apportionment clause says persons. It’s pretty to the point. You can keep reading but it moves on to other issues.

Perhaps YOU should have looked it up, Limey hack.



Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

What he cannot understand is context.

I’ll add that to the list.

 

[Nostra]

I don't have to, I know what it says. Answer the question.

It does not. It says persons.

Keep reading.

You should have looked it up. I don’t think you know as much as you think. The apportionment clause says persons. It’s pretty to the point. You can keep reading but it moves on to other issues.

So you want to make the point that illegals can't vote but they CAN be used to apportion representation?

Well, yeah. Lots of people that can’t vote are included in apportionment. Children. Incompetent. Criminals. Resident aliens.

Nope. You need to understand that Constitution is not made up of separate, unrelated passages.
Each section builds on the last.....

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The Constitution: Amendments 11-27

Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what is known as The Bill of Rights. Amendments 11-27 are listed below. AMENDMENT XI Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11. The Judicial power of the...

www.archives.gov

The entire context revolves around citizenship. Sorry son.

He will ignore your post just like he did mine pointing this out.

 

[Nostra]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

So you admit you think the Constitution is “ridiculous “.

Typical Dimwinger Clown.

 

[JLW]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

So you admit you think the Constitution is “ridiculous “.

Typical Dimwinger Clown.

I have noticed from many of your posts that you have seriously bad reading comprehension skills. Either you are major league stupid or a pathological liar. Which is it?

 

[Nostra]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

So you admit you think the Constitution is “ridiculous “.

Typical Dimwinger Clown.

I have noticed from many of your posts that you have seriously bad reading comprehension skills. Either you are major league stupid or a pathological liar. Which is it?

Exactly what you just posted, Moron. You said using the words of the 18th century is ridiculous.

Go ahead and try some more lame spin,

 

[JLW]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

So you admit you think the Constitution is “ridiculous “.

Typical Dimwinger Clown.

I have noticed from many of your posts that you have seriously bad reading comprehension skills. Either you are major league stupid or a pathological liar. Which is it?

Exactly what you just posted, Moron. You said using the words of the 18th century is ridiculous.

Go ahead and try some more lame spin,

LOL..you just proved my point you moron.

 

[Nostra]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

So you admit you think the Constitution is “ridiculous “.

Typical Dimwinger Clown.

I have noticed from many of your posts that you have seriously bad reading comprehension skills. Either you are major league stupid or a pathological liar. Which is it?

Exactly what you just posted, Moron. You said using the words of the 18th century is ridiculous.

Go ahead and try some more lame spin,

LOL..you just proved my point you moron.

More lame spin from a Constitution hater.

 

[JLW]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

So you admit you think the Constitution is “ridiculous “.

Typical Dimwinger Clown.

I have noticed from many of your posts that you have seriously bad reading comprehension skills. Either you are major league stupid or a pathological liar. Which is it?

Exactly what you just posted, Moron. You said using the words of the 18th century is ridiculous.

Go ahead and try some more lame spin,

LOL..you just proved my point you moron.

More lame spin from a Constitution hater.

More idiocy from a person with the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.

 

[Nostra]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

So you admit you think the Constitution is “ridiculous “.

Typical Dimwinger Clown.

I have noticed from many of your posts that you have seriously bad reading comprehension skills. Either you are major league stupid or a pathological liar. Which is it?

Exactly what you just posted, Moron. You said using the words of the 18th century is ridiculous.

Go ahead and try some more lame spin,

LOL..you just proved my point you moron.

More lame spin from a Constitution hater.

More idiocy from a person with the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.

Your Dumbass spin isn’t working, Constitution hater.

 

[JLW]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

So you admit you think the Constitution is “ridiculous “.

Typical Dimwinger Clown.

I have noticed from many of your posts that you have seriously bad reading comprehension skills. Either you are major league stupid or a pathological liar. Which is it?

Exactly what you just posted, Moron. You said using the words of the 18th century is ridiculous.

Go ahead and try some more lame spin,

LOL..you just proved my point you moron.

More lame spin from a Constitution hater.

More idiocy from a person with the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.

Your Dumbass spin isn’t working, Constitution hater.

Believe me I know better than try to convince a person whose brain is liquified otherwise. Sayonara, simpleton.

 

[Nostra]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

So you admit you think the Constitution is “ridiculous “.

Typical Dimwinger Clown.

I have noticed from many of your posts that you have seriously bad reading comprehension skills. Either you are major league stupid or a pathological liar. Which is it?

Exactly what you just posted, Moron. You said using the words of the 18th century is ridiculous.

Go ahead and try some more lame spin,

LOL..you just proved my point you moron.

More lame spin from a Constitution hater.

More idiocy from a person with the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.

Your Dumbass spin isn’t working, Constitution hater.

Believe me I know better than try to convince a person whose brain is liquified otherwise. Sayonara, simpleton.

More lame spin from the Constitution hating Dimwinger Simpleton.

 

[OKTexas]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Interpretation requires a variance from the 4 corners doctrine. Where judges are confined to what's actually contained within the 4 corners of a law or the Constitution. They can not infer intent that is not actually contained in the law or the Constitution.

The courts interpretation of the commerce clause is a perfect example. There is nothing contained in the clause itself that would allow them to consider everything that could tangentially effect commerce, like crops that are grown to be used on a farm where its grown and never enters into commerce. Activist judges have found otherwise, and I can think of at least one such case where even Scalia screwed the pooch on.

.

 

[justinacolmena]

yeah It means it was a problem and a solution was needed

The Nazis had a controlled-substance "solution" for every problem, didn't they? Now think about it. Addiction is a problem, the addicts want a "fix," and somebody's preparing or mixing up something in a pot, cooking it up or manufacturing it.

Remember Germany's famous Zimmermann telegram to Mexico? The Nazis finally (100 years later) recruited CJNG with all the young college kids on their side against the U.S.

 

[progressive hunter]

yeah It means it was a problem and a solution was needed

The Nazis had a controlled-substance "solution" for every problem, didn't they? Now think about it. Addiction is a problem, the addicts want a "fix," and somebody's preparing or mixing up something in a pot, cooking it up or manufacturing it.

Remember Germany's famous Zimmermann telegram to Mexico? The Nazis finally (100 years later) recruited CJNG with all the young college kids on their side against the U.S.

not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand,,,

might explain why you edited my comment out of context,,,

 

[JustAGuy1]

First judges are not there to interpret anything. They are to apply the laws and Constitution as written. Also the 14th Amendment allows for the reduction of the count, for representation, by the number of adults that are not eligible to vote for electors.

There is probably not a single Supreme Court Justice who believes in “Originalism” in any form whatever who would agree with your statement that “judges are not there to interpret anything.” You don’t understand “Originalism“ — it requires interpretation of the law, its meaning, its intent, the intent of those who wrote it, etc., etc.

Originalism is just another term for Conservative activism. Going to the words they meant in the 18th century is ridiculous. Scalia would warp his so-called originalism to fit his far right conservative notions. Originalism is a farce.

You just don't like Originalism because it because it frustrates Progressive Activism. Like all good Progs when something frustrates what you want you try and change the rules.