Why I Am A Constitutional Textualist

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
128,391
Reaction score
64,422
Points
2,615
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Let me apologize at the start for a post that most may find abstruse, but it is one of those sublects that helps define much of what goes on in politics today.


Textualism is a mode of legal 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.
-See Hon. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 23–38 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997) [hereinafter Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation].



1. Everything changed when Progressives took over law schools. They taught law students a) that there was no natural law, nor unalienable rights, and b) that the Constitution is altered by case law. This meant American lawyers interpreting the Constitution via caselaw rather than through studying the Constitution itself.

a. Roscoe Pound (1870-1964), Dean of Harvard Law School, instituted the "taught legal tradition." Pound firmly believed that the implementation of the principles of the taught legal tradition by wise common-law judges resulted in substantive change, which reflected changes in society. As the interpreters of the common law, judges had a special duty to consider the practical effects of their decisions and to strive to ensure that judging facilitated rather than hindered societal growth.” Roscoe Pound - definition of Roscoe Pound by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
What was evident in his first published book in law, common with Progressives, was his deep indebtedness to German modes of thinking.

b. Pound sought to adjust principles and doctrines of law to the realities of the human condition…. wanted to extract wisdom from German social science to apply to American law.: law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”… the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”
roscoe pound and jurisprudence and 1903 and nebraska and harvard law school

c. He was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roscoe Pound: Biography from Answers.com




2. Even before Roscoe Pound, Christopher Columbus Langdell , 1826-1906, reduced the importance of the Constitution in the law profession. In 1875 he became dean of Harvard law school. Together with J. B. Ames , who succeeded him as dean in 1895, he revised the curriculum of the school. Langdell is especially famed for the introduction of the "case method" in the study of law.

a. Langdell's theory was first adopted at Harvard, then at Columbia law school, and in time gained almost universal acceptance. Langdell prepared casebooks in the fields of contracts, equity, and sales. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ch..._Langdell.aspx

b. Before Langdell's tenure the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is. However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

c. It is based on the principle that rather than studying highly abstract summaries of legal rules (the technique still used in most countries), the best way to learn American law is to read the actual judicial opinions which become the law under the rule of stare decisis (due to its Anglo-American common law origin). Not the Constitution...which was eaten away in increments.




. The result is that lawyers today respect and honor the view of judges opinions, precedent, over the nominal ‘law of the land,’ the Constitution.
 
I do miss the political debates when such things were asked on these forums

Now we just wade through Hitler poo being slung at everyone by troll monkeys from the Left.
 
I do miss the political debates when such things were asked on these forums

Now we just wade through Hitler poo being slung at everyone by troll monkeys from the Left.
I knew the OP would have a limited audience.
I also miss more of the folks seeking knowledge, as in the following description of the Englsh of a time.


On Wednesday, June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed. In The Meaning of Everything, Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time as follows:

“The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.”
 
I knew the OP would have a limited audience.
I also miss more of the folks seeking knowledge, as in the following description of the Englsh of a time.


On Wednesday, June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed. In The Meaning of Everything, Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time as follows:

“The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.”
I look at the Constitution like I do the Bible. If you break the tenants of either, there is no bolt of lighting coming down from the sky to take you out for ignoring either.

Both are a warning. You break these rules and bad things are going to happen.
 
In a recent thread, "Remember Who We Are," with over 750 responses about whether or not Mahmoud Khlal should be deported, and my position being that no law or statute of any sort surpasses the text of the US Constitution, specifically the first amendment, guaranteeing free speech, there was a great deal of push-back by a number of Jewish posters.

Is Alan Dershowitz Jewish enough?

Is Dershowitz enought of an Israel supporter?

He authored this today:
"Alan Dershowitz: Mahmoud Khalil Deserves Speech Rights, Not Sympathy"
While Dershowitz feels Khlil should be deported, he writes this:
"The First Amendment is designed to protect the most despicable hate speech, so long as it does not constitute incitement to immediate violence. That is why both the Nazis and Khalil should be treated similarly by the courts of law, without regard to the content of their speech. "

Free speech is sacrosanct per the Constitution.
My position as a textualist, too.
 
So, I have a question. Is the amendment concerning anchor babies textualist?

And does Jeffersons quote conform to what you believe?

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Thanks for your time.
 
The OP knows nothing about the Constitution.

If she wants to go by the text, Asians weren't allowed here.
 
In a recent thread, "Remember Who We Are," with over 750 responses about whether or not Mahmoud Khlal should be deported, and my position being that no law or statute of any sort surpasses the text of the US Constitution, specifically the first amendment, guaranteeing free speech, there was a great deal of push-back by a number of Jewish posters.

Is Alan Dershowitz Jewish enough?

Is Dershowitz enought of an Israel supporter?

He authored this today:
"Alan Dershowitz: Mahmoud Khalil Deserves Speech Rights, Not Sympathy"
While Dershowitz feels Khlil should be deported, he writes this:
"The First Amendment is designed to protect the most despicable hate speech, so long as it does not constitute incitement to immediate violence. That is why both the Nazis and Khalil should be treated similarly by the courts of law, without regard to the content of their speech. "

Free speech is sacrosanct per the Constitution.
My position as a textualist, too.
I believe freedom of speech to be sacrosanct as well, but only for American citizens. Until any person here becomes a citizen, I believe his speech can be limited.
 
So, I have a question. Is the amendment concerning anchor babies textualist?

And does Jeffersons quote conform to what you believe?



Thanks for your time.
Yes. I don't believe Trump will win on that one, sans an amendment.

I would like to see the Trump view of citizenship prevail, but it will not in the context of the Constitution.
 
So, I have a question. Is the amendment concerning anchor babies textualist?

And does Jeffersons quote conform to what you believe?



Thanks for your time.
  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.’
Here's a book worth reading:
1742846827627.webp

 
The OP knows nothing about the Constitution.

If she wants to go by the text, Asians weren't allowed here.
I've noticed that, other at nipping at the heels of those more intelligent than you are, you never add anything to the discussion.

That must bother you immensely.
 
I believe freedom of speech to be sacrosanct as well, but only for American citizens. Until any person here becomes a citizen, I believe his speech can be limited.
But you know that legal residents are covered by the Constitution, too.
 
Let me apologize at the start for a post that most may find abstruse, but it is one of those sublects that helps define much of what goes on in politics today.


Textualism is a mode of legal 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.
-See Hon. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 23–38 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997) [hereinafter Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation].



1. Everything changed when Progressives took over law schools. They taught law students a) that there was no natural law, nor unalienable rights, and b) that the Constitution is altered by case law. This meant American lawyers interpreting the Constitution via caselaw rather than through studying the Constitution itself.

a. Roscoe Pound (1870-1964), Dean of Harvard Law School, instituted the "taught legal tradition." Pound firmly believed that the implementation of the principles of the taught legal tradition by wise common-law judges resulted in substantive change, which reflected changes in society. As the interpreters of the common law, judges had a special duty to consider the practical effects of their decisions and to strive to ensure that judging facilitated rather than hindered societal growth.” Roscoe Pound - definition of Roscoe Pound by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
What was evident in his first published book in law, common with Progressives, was his deep indebtedness to German modes of thinking.

b. Pound sought to adjust principles and doctrines of law to the realities of the human condition…. wanted to extract wisdom from German social science to apply to American law.: law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”… the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”
roscoe pound and jurisprudence and 1903 and nebraska and harvard law school

c. He was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roscoe Pound: Biography from Answers.com




2. Even before Roscoe Pound, Christopher Columbus Langdell , 1826-1906, reduced the importance of the Constitution in the law profession. In 1875 he became dean of Harvard law school. Together with J. B. Ames , who succeeded him as dean in 1895, he revised the curriculum of the school. Langdell is especially famed for the introduction of the "case method" in the study of law.

a. Langdell's theory was first adopted at Harvard, then at Columbia law school, and in time gained almost universal acceptance. Langdell prepared casebooks in the fields of contracts, equity, and sales. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ch..._Langdell.aspx

b. Before Langdell's tenure the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is. However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

c. It is based on the principle that rather than studying highly abstract summaries of legal rules (the technique still used in most countries), the best way to learn American law is to read the actual judicial opinions which become the law under the rule of stare decisis (due to its Anglo-American common law origin). Not the Constitution...which was eaten away in increments.




. The result is that lawyers today respect and honor the view of judges opinions, precedent, over the nominal ‘law of the land,’ the Constitution.
If you are going to all the trouble of trying so hard to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, you shouldn't start out by misspelling a simple word like obtuse. Spell check is your friend.
 
If you are going to all the trouble of trying so hard to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, you shouldn't start out by misspelling a simple word like obtuse. Spell check is your friend.
There is no sense you "trying so hard to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like," you moron.....

The word is "abstruse."


Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ab·struse
/əbˈstro͞os/

adjective

  1. difficult to understand; obscure.
    "an abstruse philosophical inquiry"



    Are you ready to apologize?


BTW.....English is my second language........do you have a first?
 
Last edited:
The OP knows nothing about the Constitution.

If she wants to go by the text, Asians weren't allowed here.
And what does the Left know about the Constitution?

You praise FDR as being one of the greatest presidents of all time, despite knowing he locked up Japanese Americans during WW2 cuz they have squinty eyes.

It was clearly racist and unconstitutional as Trump has done nothing as racially hateful, not even close.

Where were the Federal judges to come to the rescue then I wonder?

No where to be found.

Funny that.
 
I've noticed that, other at nipping at the heels of those more intelligent than you are, you never add anything to the discussion.

That must bother you immensely.
Racist

:auiqs.jpg:

That is about all the brain function you will get from the Lunatic Left.
 
Last edited:
  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.’
Here's a book worth reading:
I enjoy reading your posts. You are one smart cookie.
 
All of us should have an interest in the Constitution, if only to be able to trace how Americ change when the founding document was no longer in effect.


America was America from 1789 to 1933....nearly a century and a half. The Constitution was in effect, and served as a guide for our government.
The ascendency of the materialist 32nd President....ended the noble experiment of limited constitutional government, and of American history.

Those of us born after the 1940s, pretty much all of us, live in the brave new United States....awesome in so many ways.....yet cultivating the seeds of its own destruction.

Slowly, from the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson through that of Franklin Roosevelt, the America envisioned by the Founders was put to death, a slow, lingering demise.
The heart of the republic, the Constitution, was ripped out as the savage Magua ripped out the beating heart of Colonel Munro.



a. Woodrow Wilson said the Constitution could be "stripped off and thrown aside."

b. Franklin Roosevelt demanded emergency powers: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net

c. And under Roosevelt, a clique of five Justices, Louis Brandeis, Harlan Stone, Benjamin Cardozo, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, conspired to end the Founders' plan: limited constitutional government.

And they did.
Prior to their actions, the federal government was constrained by Article 1, section 8, the enumerated powers, a list of specified uses for federal funds.
Have you seen the bizarre list Musk found of $billioins spent by politicians?
 
It was August 14, 1935 when FDR signed the Social Security Act. As it was unassociated with any of the enumerated powers, the question as to whether the government could dun Americans for that purpose was put to the courts for a test.

The court case that delivered the coup de grace to the United States Constitution was Helvering v. Davis.

"Helvering v. Davis, (May 24, 1937)...a decision by theUnited States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, .... It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional." Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Be clear: this decision was a direct contravention of the judicial understanding of the phrase "general welfare."
In one fell swoop, this rogue court destroyed the idea that the federal government was, in any way, limited in its spending authority.


Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts., writing in 1951, said in effect: "We voted against the Constitution to save the Court."
 
Back
Top Bottom