Why I Am A Constitutional Textualist

[LuckyDuck01!]

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.

The U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest documents created, giving the people living under its freedoms they never knew prior to its implementation.
That being said, the Constitution, as great as it is, shouldn't be a "suicide pact." If there is a great danger growing in the nation and we shrug it off, simply because of those very freedoms we have been granted in the Constitution, we will be doomed.
Our youth is being indoctrinated by anti-Constitution neo-Marxist educators in our educational system, Islam a 7th century theocratic system is growing in areas that are also a threat to our Constitution.
The government on these topics is basically shrugging it off as freedom and thus suicidal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest documents created, giving the people living under its freedoms they never knew prior to its implementation.
That being said, the Constitution, as great as it is, shouldn't be a "suicide pact." If there is a great danger growing in the nation and we shrug it off, simply because of those very freedoms we have been granted in the Constitution, we will be doomed.
Our youth is being indoctrinated by anti-Constitution neo-Marxist educators in our educational system, Islam a 7th century theocratic system is growing in areas that are also a threat to our Constitution.
The government on these topics is basically shrugging it off as freedom and thus suicidal.

I feel inclined to agree with the effect of your post, but I sure would like some specificity.

In what what is it currently a sucide pact?

What is the great danger, and how should we address it?

What to do about Islam? The school system, and how is the Constitution restricting said actions?

BTW, did you see what Trump did with Harvard, and how they are suddenly no longer having separate black, white, gay, Hispanic graduations?
Constitution doesn't seem to have been a prob.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I feel inclined to agree with the effect of your post, but I sure would like some specifi

What is the great danger, and how should we address it?

What to do about Islam? The school system, and how is the Constitution restricting said actions?

BTW, did you see what Trump did with Harvard, and how they are suddenly no longer having separate black, white, gay, Hispanic graduations?
Constitution doesn't seem to have been a prob.

I was watching/listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali answer students on the topic of Islam.
Add to this, I've been watching Tousi Tv, run by Mahyar Tousi in England and whose family fled Iran at the Islamic takeover of the nation. His father is still trapped there and the Islamic government won't let go to England. His independent news podcast on YouTube, talks about mostly England, but also about Europe in general on how Islam, despite only being 6% of England's population, is basically calling the shots in that nation. Any complaints that are highly critical of the religion by non-Muslims and they are arrested, whereas the Muslims can complain about Christians and other non-Muslims, with impunity. England will soon be lost to Islam as well as some of the other European nations.
Islam is growing rapidly in Canada and has begun to do so as well here. They have large families and in some areas of the mid-west have dominated town councils. The purpose of Islam coming into western nations isn't to assimilate but for the purpose of "da-wah," change infidel nations to Islamic nations
The violence seen committed by Muslims against non-Muslims is because of Islam's two house policy. House one is the: House of Islam, which teaches the religion and enforces its tenets. House two is the: House of War, which conducts a mixture of asymmetrical (guerilla/terrorist) and conventional war against Islam.
The following is their overall policy: Convert by conversation/teaching, if that fails, intimidate, if that fails, threaten, if that fails, use violence.
When answering an English speaking interviewer on the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a United Arab Emirates Arab responded honestly with, (bear with me as I'm paraphrasing), The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians has nothing to do with territory. It wasn't about territory in 1948, or in 1963, 0r 1967, or now, it's about "subjugation. We are a conquering religion."
Sticking with the Constitutional belief that there must remain a "freedom of religion" while allowing Islam to grow within the US borders, is in the long run, suicidal to those very freedoms we enjoy. Keep in mind that women suffer the most under Islam..

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was watching/listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali answer students on the topic of Islam.
Add to this, I've been watching Tousi Tv, run by Mahyar Tousi in England and whose family fled Iran at the Islamic takeover of the nation. His father is still trapped there and the Islamic government won't let go to England. His independent news podcast on YouTube, talks about mostly England, but also about Europe in general on how Islam, despite only being 6% of England's population, is basically calling the shots in that nation. Any complaints that are highly critical of the religion by non-Muslims and they are arrested, whereas the Muslims can complain about Christians and other non-Muslims, with impunity. England will soon be lost to Islam as well as some of the other European nations.
Islam is growing rapidly in Canada and has begun to do so as well here. They have large families and in some areas of the mid-west have dominated town councils. The purpose of Islam coming into western nations isn't to assimilate but for the purpose of "da-wah," change infidel nations to Islamic nations
The violence seen committed by Muslims against non-Muslims is because of Islam's two house policy. House one is the: House of Islam, which teaches the religion and enforces its tenets. House two is the: House of War, which conducts a mixture of asymmetrical (guerilla/terrorist) and conventional war against Islam.
The following is their overall policy: Convert by conversation/teaching, if that fails, intimidate, if that fails, threaten, if that fails, use violence.
When answering an English speaking interviewer on the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a United Arab Emirates Arab responded honestly with, (bear with me as I'm paraphrasing), The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians has nothing to do with territory. It wasn't about territory in 1948, or in 1963, 0r 1967, or now, it's about "subjugation. We are a conquering religion."
Sticking with the Constitutional belief that there must remain a "freedom of religion" while allowing Islam to grow within the US borders, is in the long run, suicidal to those very freedoms we enjoy. Keep in mind that women suffer the most under Islam..

I understand your feeling about it, I don't see either Islam taking over America, nor the Constitution dictating it allowable.

Did you know this?
“…less anticipated was the level of support Trump received from Muslim voters, a third of whom backed him, according to the AP VoteCast survey.” A third of Muslim voters backed Trump. Why? | Spectator USA


While there clearly are fanatic Muslims, many respond positively to American freedom and values. BTW, some fervent Muslims simply move back 'home' because they don't want their children seduced by America.
When I was in Egypt, by the Pyramids, a kid about 10 tried to sell me some items.....spoke perfect English.
When I asked him how he learned it, he said he was raised in California, then the family returned.

Maybe you've read this....

Certainly backs up what you've written.


The Constitution's "no religious tests" would prevent any takeover.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

IM2 can't have an original thought to save his life.

Everything is YOR A RACIST.

 

[mudwhistle]

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 always assumed that the reason for the Supreme Court was to adhere to the texts and refrain from writing laws from the bench.

But the left knows that the constitution is getting in their way, so they simply vote along party lines rather than interpret accurately. They're too busy trying to establish new precedence rather than follow the laws as written. This is how Roe v Wade was decided. Then Dobbs comes along and wipes that all out.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I understand your feeling about it, I don't see either Islam taking over America, nor the Constitution dictating it allowable.

Did you know this?
“…less anticipated was the level of support Trump received from Muslim voters, a third of whom backed him, according to the AP VoteCast survey.” A third of Muslim voters backed Trump. Why? | Spectator USA


While there clearly are fanatic Muslims, many respond positively to American freedom and values. BTW, some fervent Muslims simply move back 'home' because they don't want their children seduced by America.
When I was in Egypt, by the Pyramids, a kid about 10 tried to sell me some items.....spoke perfect English.
When I asked him how he learned it, he said he was raised in California, then the family returned.

Maybe you've read this....

View attachment 1115834


Certainly backs up what you've written.


The Constitution's "no religious tests" would prevent any takeover.

Perhaps you are unaware of Saudi Arabia's change in dealing with the USA years ago. The king told his clerics that they were not to advocate the killing of infidels "as long as the infidels didn't interfere with their (Islam's) ultimate goals. (Conquering the world.}
Improving trade and providing strong military materials to the Arab states, benefits them and with Islam growing in Europe and Canada, they will at some point in the future, be emboldened to use force against infidel nations.
Mudwhistle refers to you and no doubt by extension me, a racist. However, Islam isn't a race as their are white Europeans who have converted to Islam, Chinese that are Muslim, et cetera. So he's wrong. It's an anti-Theocracy stance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

IM2 can't have an original thought to save his life.

Everything is YOR A RACIST.

It is so sad, and he embarrasses himself further in posting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I always assumed that the reason for the Supreme Court was to adhere to the texts and refrain from writing laws from the bench.

But the left knows that the constitution is getting in their way, so they simply vote along party lines rather than interpret accurately. They're too busy trying to establish new precedence rather than follow the laws as written. This is how Roe v Wade was decided. Then Dobbs comes along and wipes that all out.

The Progressives that I mentioned in the OP, Pound and Langdell, shifted the focus from the Constitution to the words of judges. That was the end.

 

[mudwhistle]

It is so sad, and he embarrasses himself further in posting.

Yep. I've met several guys just like him.

He's like a black version of a Southern Democrat.

Thankfully most of those old farts are too old to be a problem at work because most of them have retired.

Now we have to deal with the IM2's and SuperSoulbrothers out there. Guys that are still living in the 60s.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps you are unaware of Saudi Arabia's change in dealing with the USA years ago. The king told his clerics that they were not to advocate the killing of infidels "as long as the infidels didn't interfere with their (Islam's) ultimate goals. (Conquering the world.}
Improving trade and providing strong military materials to the Arab states, benefits them and with Islam growing in Europe and Canada, they will at some point in the future, be emboldened to use force against infidel nations.
Mudwhistle refers to you and no doubt by extension me, a racist. However, Islam isn't a race as their are white Europeans who have converted to Islam, Chinese that are Muslim, et cetera. So he's wrong. It's an anti-Theocracy stance.

I don't see Mudwhistle doing so.

What would you like, banning Muslims from America? Bombing Mecca?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep. I've met several guys just like him.

He's like a black version of a Southern Democrat.

Thankfully most of those old farts are too old to be a problem at work because most of them have retired.

Now we have to deal with the IM2's and SuperSoulbrothers out there. Guys that are still living in the 60s.

I see changes in the number of blacks who voted for Trump.

The one you mention is of thos who cannot change.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Progressives that I mentioned in the OP, Pound and Langdell, shifted the focus from the Constitution to the words of judges. That was the end.

Opinion in the law is all that matters to them.

THE LAW doesn't matter as much....unless they can use it against their opposition.

The left only goes to law school to find ways around the law and impose their ideology on the rest of us.

 

[San Souci]

You might want to ask that of Franklin Roosevelt.....


"This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR's views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular.... He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had "blood of the right sort." "

What FDR said about Jews in private​

What FDR said about Jews in private

www.latimes.com

The Dems call Trump a Nazi. Yet it was their beloved FDR who put American Citizens in Prison Camps because of their RACE. That's History ,ain't it?