On guns, originalism as insanity

[Elephant Tipper 430]

On 11/18/2022 at 11:32 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

The problem with Constitutional originalism is the same problem that Christians who believe in Sola Scripture run into. 

Like the Bible, the constitution was written in a vastly different world, with different priorities, different moral beliefs, etc. During the creation of both, people were a lot less free and had much less liberties than people have now. In both the Bible and Constitution, it was largely accepted that while everyone was 'created' equal...in the real life world everyone was not actually equal. and both the bible and Constitution were written by people of their time and reflect that inequality. 

 

As far as constitutional law goes, official amendments are basically impossible in our current system of government so we're seemingly forever trapped in the "intentions and beliefs" of flawed men who lived in the 18th century. 

The term is Sola Scriptura, not Sola Scripture.  You clearly don't understand it.  Have a knowledgeable person who believes it explain it to you.

[Leftfield 2,593]

9 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

 Have a knowledgeable person who believes it explain it to you.

I guess we're to take it....you aren't knowledgeable about it, since you aren't explaining it. If so, how do you know Coffee isn't?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

10 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I guess we're to take it....you aren't knowledgeable about it, since you aren't explaining it. If so, how do you know Coffee isn't?

My comment was directed to the person who has little knowledge about the term and its meaning, not the community.  Sola Scriptura has ZERO to do with the discussion.  If one were to begin discussing medical surgery techniques and then try using the theory of relativity to explain them, then you would say to yourself that this person doesn't have one iota of knowledge about the subject without explaining the theory of relativity, would you ?

Edited November 25, 2022 by Elephant Tipper

[Leftfield 2,593]

48 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

My comment was directed to the person who has little knowledge about the term and its meaning, not the community.  Sola Scriptura has ZERO to do with the discussion.  If one were to begin discussing medical surgery techniques and then try using the theory of relativity to explain them, then you would say to yourself that this person doesn't have one iota of knowledge about the subject without explaining the theory of relativity, would you ?

It didn't strike me as a central point of the discussion. I just saw it as a comparison. Holding the Bible as an absolute, unchanging authority does seem to be very similar to those who think of the Constitution as the same (the idea of changing anything in the Constitution seems to be akin to sacrilege to some people, even though government has always had the ability to do so). The pitfalls of seeing it as so are also the same....failure to adapt to a changing society and therefore making it increasingly alienating.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

It didn't strike me as a central point of the discussion. I just saw it as a comparison. Holding the Bible as an absolute, unchanging authority does seem to be very similar to those who think of the Constitution as the same (the idea of changing anything in the Constitution seems to be akin to sacrilege to some people, even though government has always had the ability to do so). The pitfalls of seeing it as so are also the same....failure to adapt to a changing society and therefore making it increasingly alienating.

SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION:

What you recite is a tiring refrain from the left, that the Constitution doesn't change.  The Constitution is NOT absolute.  The Constitution does and has changed, often.  The framers of the Constitution designed our Constitution specifically for the purpose of change and that process is through Amendments, of which we have had 27.  What bothers most from the left and right, which Barack Obama harangued, is that the process is SLOW and DELIBERATIVE.  This slow process is meant to prevent a sweep of a vocal, brief, but not majority, ideology to overcome the will of the People.  Our form of government was designed to protect the minority.  This is a major reason why a simple majority vote in the Senate is contrary to the wellbeing of our nation, it is DANGEROUS.  One deciding vote (aka simple majority) to change America ?  That is not America.  Our country is based on persuasion, not dictatorial power.

At present, the country is experiencing gridlock in Congress with narrow majorities.  This was designed by the framers so that if there is to be a significant change, such must be accomplished with a strong majority of the people, in essence, really convince us that we should make such a serious change and we'll do it.

If you want fast change, then a parliamentary form of government allows such, but it tends to be chaotic.  A slower, more deliberative form creates greater stability  (The UK has had 4 Prime Ministers in just the past 6 years).  Because of such, America has become the beacon to the world in governmental success.  No other nation in the history of the world has accomplished so much in such little time, simply because of the structure of our government.

[Leftfield 2,593]

20 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

What you recite is a tiring refrain from the left, that the Constitution doesn't change. 

I didn't say you thought the Constitution shouldn't (or hasn't) change(d), I was simply pointing out that some do, and that's the comparison I think Coffee was making.

I agree government shouldn't be able to change major structures or institutions on a whim, but there are also dangers to locking it into inaction. Most of us agree that a two-party system is detrimental, and this is why...you evolve into elections of one-issue or few-issue voters who believe the other party isn't a viable option, so compromise falls victim.

[aubiefifty 16,755]

Mass shootings in the US: 2022 could be the second-highest year

Janie Boschma

~3 minutes

---

CNN  — 

This year is likely to be the second-highest year for mass shootings in the United States on record, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-profit that tracks gun violence incidents across the country.

The Gun Violence Archive, like CNN, defines a mass shooting as one in which at least four people are shot, excluding the shooter.

There have been at least 607 mass shootings through November 22 this year. That’s just short of the 638 mass shootings in the country at this point last year – the worst year on record since the group began tracking them in 2014. There were a total of 690 mass shootings in 2021. The United States is likely to soon surpass the total of 610 mass shootings in 2020, with more than a month left of 2022 to go.

Tuesday’s massacre at a Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, left six people dead and four more with injuries. That was just three days after five people died in a shooting rampage at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado.

In the past week alone, mass shootings have claimed at least 24 lives and injured 37 others in gun rampages across seven states, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

There have been more mass shootings than days so far in 2022 – a trend that’s continued each year since 2019 – underscoring the growing prevalence of gun violence in American life.

The pace of mass shootings in 2022 is part of a three-year uptick that began in 2020. Between 2019 and 2020, the total number of mass shootings all year jumped from 417 to 610. The number jumped again in 2021 to 690.

In 2022 so far, at least 3,179 people have been shot in mass shootings, resulting in 637 deaths and more than 2,500 people injured.

Through the same period in 2021, there were at least 3,267 people shot in mass shootings, resulting in 645 deaths, while in 2020 the numbers show 2,873 people shot with 463 deaths.

So far in November, there have been at least 32 mass shootings across the nation resulting in more than 177 people shot and 43 dead. For the month of November 2021 through the 22nd, there were 36 mass shootings, resulting in 160 people shot, leaving 34 of those people dead.

CNN’s Priya Krishnakumar and Dakin Andone contributed to this report.

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

I didn't say you thought the Constitution shouldn't (or hasn't) change(d), I was simply pointing out that some do, and that's the comparison I think Coffee was making.

I agree government shouldn't be able to change major structures or institutions on a whim, but there are also dangers to locking it into inaction. Most of us agree that a two-party system is detrimental, and this is why...you evolve into elections of one-issue or few-issue voters who believe the other party isn't a viable option, so compromise falls victim.

ET is saying sola scriptura is not equivalent to interpreting the Bible literally in its entirety. Thus a bad comparison, nothing more than opportunity for Coffee to take a dig at the Bible.
Homer is right. Something is way off if we are allowing “originalism” to make guns available for quacks.

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

Mass shootings in the US: 2022 could be the second-highest year

Janie Boschma

~3 minutes

---

CNN  — 

This year is likely to be the second-highest year for mass shootings in the United States on record, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-profit that tracks gun violence incidents across the country.

The Gun Violence Archive, like CNN, defines a mass shooting as one in which at least four people are shot, excluding the shooter.

There have been at least 607 mass shootings through November 22 this year. That’s just short of the 638 mass shootings in the country at this point last year – the worst year on record since the group began tracking them in 2014. There were a total of 690 mass shootings in 2021. The United States is likely to soon surpass the total of 610 mass shootings in 2020, with more than a month left of 2022 to go.

Tuesday’s massacre at a Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, left six people dead and four more with injuries. That was just three days after five people died in a shooting rampage at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado.

In the past week alone, mass shootings have claimed at least 24 lives and injured 37 others in gun rampages across seven states, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

There have been more mass shootings than days so far in 2022 – a trend that’s continued each year since 2019 – underscoring the growing prevalence of gun violence in American life.

The pace of mass shootings in 2022 is part of a three-year uptick that began in 2020. Between 2019 and 2020, the total number of mass shootings all year jumped from 417 to 610. The number jumped again in 2021 to 690.

In 2022 so far, at least 3,179 people have been shot in mass shootings, resulting in 637 deaths and more than 2,500 people injured.

Through the same period in 2021, there were at least 3,267 people shot in mass shootings, resulting in 645 deaths, while in 2020 the numbers show 2,873 people shot with 463 deaths.

So far in November, there have been at least 32 mass shootings across the nation resulting in more than 177 people shot and 43 dead. For the month of November 2021 through the 22nd, there were 36 mass shootings, resulting in 160 people shot, leaving 34 of those people dead.

CNN’s Priya Krishnakumar and Dakin Andone contributed to this report.

And yet we continue to let criminals out of jail, decline prosecution of criminals, legalize drugs, and ignore mental health….

 

instead some people think inanimate objects are a root cause…

[keywest 138]

On 11/17/2022 at 10:35 PM, homersapien said:

Republicans own this. 

Trump has poisoned our future with these ******* 'Federalist Society' judges.  We need them to pay the price every election for however many years it takes to be rid of them. I hope the Democrats are preparing a campaign pointing this out.

Our own judicial Taliban.  Take us back 300 years. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/17/originalism-guns-supremecourt-domestic-violence/

 

By Ruth Marcus,  November 17, 2022

 

In May, Louisville police were called to deal with a domestic violence complaint against a man named Litsson Perez-Gallan. The alleged victim, the mother of Perez-Gallan’s child, “states she was sitting on the bed holding their child and perp struck her on the left side of her face,” an officer wrote. “Vic then sat the baby down on the bed and vic stated perp then drug her to the bathroom and struck her in the face again and then began hitting her in the rib area. Vic had red marks on the left side of her face, a small laceration on her lip and pain around her chin area.”

The criminal justice system — a system that has too often ignored or underplayed domestic violence — worked, up to a point. Perez-Gallan was subjected to a restraining order. It barred him from being within 500 feet of his alleged victim or communicating with her.

In addition — and this is the subject of this column — the order prohibited Perez-Gallan from having a firearm.

The next month, Perez-Gallan was stopped while driving an 18-wheeler in Texas, near the border with Mexico. In his backpack, he had a stolen Sig Sauer pistol; in his wallet, a copy of the court order stating his conditions of release. He was charged with violating a federal law that prohibits gun possession by those under domestic violence restraining orders.

So far, so good? Not in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling this year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The six-justice conservative majority, rejecting New York’s concealed-carry licensing law, said that the gun regulations had to be based on, or similar to, those that existed historically to pass constitutional muster. Without a historical analogue, the gun law violates the Second Amendment.

You might be able to guess where this is heading. Turns out, in Colonial times and beyond, authorities didn’t take domestic violence seriously. So, Perez-Gallan’s lawyer did what lawyers do: He seized on Bruen to argue that the law violates Perez-Gallan’s Second Amendment rights.

“The American Revolution secured the rights of white men to be protected from interference by the government in their private affairs,” wrote the lawyer, Shane O’Neal. After the revolution, he argued, “the newly minted American States moved away from laws in England and the New England colonies that punished domestic violence. Instead, practices that protected women and children from maltreatment by male heads of house were discarded as incompatible with a newfound sanctity for the family — a private sphere outside of the reach of government.” He quoted a historian: “Courts became notably reluctant to impose constraints on men’s abusive treatment of their household dependents.”

And no surprise: With domestic violence not seen as a problem, there isn’t much evidence of founding-era rules that prohibited the possession of firearms by those accused of it. “Our founders would never have anticipated disarming people accused but not convicted of domestic violence,” O’Neal argued.

That’s right: Because the law then countenanced abusing women, it cannot be interpreted to protect them now.

Defending his client zealously is O’Neal’s job. Interpreting the Constitution both faithfully and reasonably is the judge’s job, and here is where things really went off the rails. U.S. District Judge David Counts found this month that the federal law violates the Second Amendment and ordered Perez-Gallan’s indictment dismissed.

“Domestic abusers are not new,” noted Counts, who was originally nominated by President Barack Obama and renominated by President Donald Trump. “But until the mid-1970s, government intervention — much less removing an individual’s firearms — because of domestic violence practically did not exist. … Glaringly absent from the historical record — from colonial times until 1994 — are consistent examples of the government removing firearms from someone accused (or even convicted) of domestic violence.”

This is what the Supreme Court has wrought, with its maniacal focus on originalism and its even more blinkered insistence that the hunt for “original public meaning” must be confined to a search for historical analogues. Never mind that the Founding Fathers didn’t conceive of ghost guns produced by 3D printers, or extended magazines — or rights for women, for that matter.

How absurd is this? Counts recites the historical punishments meted out for wife-beating: a 1672 case in which a man was sentenced to be “whipped with ten stripes” or a provision of the 1870s California penal code that subjected spouse abusers to “not less than twenty-one lashes on the bare back.” Yet surely even the most die-hard originalists would conclude that a modern-day whipping law constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment under the Eighth Amendment, whatever happened back in the day.

The aftershocks of Bruen are just beginning to work their way through the lower courts; Counts’s ruling might not stand. Even under the high court’s grudging approach to gun regulation, it is possible to uphold this restriction. The court in Bruen emphasized that the Second Amendment protects the right of “ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens” to carry guns outside the home. Someone arrested for assaulting an intimate partner and subjected to a protective order issued by a judge is neither ordinary — let’s hope — nor law-abiding. And, as the Justice Department argued in the Perez-Gallan case, the Second Amendment was “adopted against a historical backdrop that allowed disarming dangerous persons.”

But the evidence of fallout from Bruen is alarming. Last month, a federal judge in New York invalidated a state gun law passed in the aftermath of Bruen that restricted guns at summer camps, among other places; he reasoned that there weren’t such camps in Colonial times. In September, Counts struck down a federal law that prohibited those indicted on felony charges, but not yet convicted, from possessing guns. “There are no illusions about this case’s real-world consequences — certainly valid public policy and safety concerns exist,” he acknowledged. “Yet Bruen framed those concerns solely as a historical analysis. This Court follows that framework.”

I wrote after the summer camp ruling that this was “originalism as parody.” But that understated the situation. This is originalism as insanity.

So, it's Trump's fault for appointing Judges to uphold the Constitution? The leftist loon logic: A loon shoots someone, it's the guns (tools) fault but a loon in a car (tool) runs over people in Charlottesville, it's the drivers fault.............Got it! (leftist loon ideological logic) 

[homersapien 11,362]

On 11/24/2022 at 10:14 AM, GoAU said:

If someone has been beating their wife - why haven't they been arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced?  We already have laws that address this and felons cannot own guns.  The issue is that the government actually has to do work to enforce the law.  I am all for keeping firearms from people that shouldn't have them, if due process is followed.   Unfortunately, many (if not all) of our "red flag" laws ignore due process, and frankly aren't followed by the government anyway.   

Throw the book at criminals, but stop attempting to punish everyone because we refuse to address those that commit crimes.

Just talking off the top of my head since I am not a lawyer nor do I know the details of this case but, perhaps, knowing that a trial and conviction could take months - if not longer - the injunction was imposed to protect the woman in the meantime.

(I bet the people in Colorado Springs wish the red flag laws were being taken more seriously by the people in a position to request it - and by the police.)

 

[GoAU 1,600]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Just talking off the top of my head since I am not a lawyer nor do I know the details of this case but, perhaps, knowing that a trial and conviction could take months - if not longer - the injunction was imposed to protect the woman in the meantime.

(I bet the people in Colorado Springs wish the red flag laws were being taken more seriously by the people in a position to request it - and by the police.)

 

I certainly understand your point, but do you not also see the problem associated with removal of rights without due process?   What recourse would you propose for people that abuse the system?   It’s not like there’s never been an ex husband / wife with vindictive intent?   
 

It will take months & cost thousands of dollars to get your rights restored if you’re placed on a Red Flag list.  Unfortunately the way these laws are set up in most states is the police show up unannounced (sometimes with no knock warrants) and begin confiscating property - no due process at all.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:51 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

We know what originalism is by definition and we know what originalism actually ends up being in practice when Federalist Society Judges pretend to use it to justify their rulings in the court room. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think if you read up on originalism, you might change at least some of your presuppositions. You might even conclude that originalism is the only approach to interpreting authoritative legal texts that is compatible with democracy. 

[The Freak 2,526]

On 11/25/2022 at 1:13 PM, aubiefifty said:

Mass shootings in the US: 2022 could be the second-highest year

Janie Boschma

~3 minutes

---

CNN  — 

This year is likely to be the second-highest year for mass shootings in the United States on record, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-profit that tracks gun violence incidents across the country.

The Gun Violence Archive, like CNN, defines a mass shooting as one in which at least four people are shot, excluding the shooter.

There have been at least 607 mass shootings through November 22 this year. That’s just short of the 638 mass shootings in the country at this point last year – the worst year on record since the group began tracking them in 2014. There were a total of 690 mass shootings in 2021. The United States is likely to soon surpass the total of 610 mass shootings in 2020, with more than a month left of 2022 to go.

Tuesday’s massacre at a Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, left six people dead and four more with injuries. That was just three days after five people died in a shooting rampage at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado.

In the past week alone, mass shootings have claimed at least 24 lives and injured 37 others in gun rampages across seven states, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

There have been more mass shootings than days so far in 2022 – a trend that’s continued each year since 2019 – underscoring the growing prevalence of gun violence in American life.

The pace of mass shootings in 2022 is part of a three-year uptick that began in 2020. Between 2019 and 2020, the total number of mass shootings all year jumped from 417 to 610. The number jumped again in 2021 to 690.

In 2022 so far, at least 3,179 people have been shot in mass shootings, resulting in 637 deaths and more than 2,500 people injured.

Through the same period in 2021, there were at least 3,267 people shot in mass shootings, resulting in 645 deaths, while in 2020 the numbers show 2,873 people shot with 463 deaths.

So far in November, there have been at least 32 mass shootings across the nation resulting in more than 177 people shot and 43 dead. For the month of November 2021 through the 22nd, there were 36 mass shootings, resulting in 160 people shot, leaving 34 of those people dead.

CNN’s Priya Krishnakumar and Dakin Andone contributed to this report.

I'm gonna need more guns.

[aubiefifty 16,755]

4 minutes ago, The Freak said:

I'm gonna need more guns.

I try to leave and they drag me back in..................grins. was that scarface that said that or sopranos or both?

[The Freak 2,526]

27 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

I try to leave and they drag me back in..................grins. was that scarface that said that or sopranos or both?

Godfather, I think.

[homersapien 11,362]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think if you read up on originalism, you might change at least some of your presuppositions. You might even conclude that originalism is the only approach to interpreting authoritative legal texts that is compatible with democracy. 

I am not expert it what "originalism" really means.  I am more concerned with what I would call "literalism".  (Textualism?)

In my mind, literalism/textualism is what can be stifling to progress in a democracy whose constitution has  excessive and/or non-representational barriers to changing it (as our gun problem demonstrates).

To me, the second amendment is clearly designed to provide for collective defense ("well regulated militia").  (As I recall, the idea of having a standing U.S. army was not generally accepted at the time.)

(It is interesting to speculate how the second amendment might be written if the founding fathers lived today.)

Practically speaking, the way the 2nd is being interpreted today by many in our country (if not the majority) has resulted in a modern day social nightmare.

It is no longer relevant to national defense, which would seem to be obvious, at least to me. 

I am fine with a right to own firearms for for hunting, personal protection or recreational purposes.  But the mass marketing of weapons of war (assault rifles) in our society is a problem, whether you want to admit it or not.

Bottom line, the idea we need to have modern assault rifles in every home's closet to maintain our national freedom is fantasy based on a romantic infatuation where our national defense actually did depend on that.   Our world has changed.

Edited November 30, 2022 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not expert it what "originalism" really means.  I am more concerned with what I would call "literalism".  (Textualism?)

In my mind, literalism/textualism is what can be stifling to progress in a democracy whose constitution has  excessive and/or non-representational barriers to changing it (as our gun problem demonstrates).

I'm kind of going down a rabbit trail with this response, so apologies in advance. 

I think you're referring to "strict constructionism," which is very different from originalism (connoting an interpretation of the text) and textualism (connoting a construction of the text). Strict constructionism is akin to hyper-literalism. Take the First Amendment, for example: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. Does that mean Congress can censor handwritten letters? A strict constructionist would have to say "yes." After all, handwritten letters are neither speech nor press. That of course, is quite absurd. 

As a separate point, originalism primarily condemns the notion that the meaning of a text changes over time--as contrasted with applying a stable meaning to new phenomena. When authoritative legal texts are given a new meaning--ie., when the text was adopted it meant A, but now it means B--the law is changed; changing written law, like enacting the law in the first place, is a function belonging to elected legislators and (in some cases) elected executive officials and their delegates. It assuredly is not the function of the judiciary. Thus when judges "rewrite" the law to appeal to what they believe is a social consensus or to achieve a result they deem desirous, that is a radical departure from our democratic system. 

[homersapien 11,362]

20 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm kind of going down a rabbit trail with this response, so apologies in advance. 

I think you're referring to "strict constructionism," which is very different from originalism (connoting an interpretation of the text) and textualism (connoting a construction of the text). Strict constructionism is akin to hyper-literalism. Take the First Amendment, for example: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. Does that mean Congress can censor handwritten letters? A strict constructionist would have to say "yes." After all, handwritten letters are neither speech nor press. That of course, is quite absurd. 

As a separate point, originalism primarily condemns the notion that the meaning of a text changes over time--as contrasted with applying a stable meaning to new phenomena. When authoritative legal texts are given a new meaning--ie., when the text was adopted it meant A, but now it means B--the law is changed; changing written law, like enacting the law in the first place, is a function belonging to elected legislators and (in some cases) elected executive officials and their delegates. It assuredly is not the function of the judiciary. Thus when judges "rewrite" the law to appeal to what they believe is a social consensus or to achieve a result they deem desirous, that is a radical departure from our democratic system. 

Thanks for your response.  It sounds like my understanding of originalism was more or less the opposite of what I thought it was.  But I'll have to think about it some more and maybe do a little more reading.

This reminds me of studying philosophy. It's all so dependent on semantics, and I suppose - in the context of law - custom.  Literalism is easy enough to grasp, but "constructionism" ? 

This reminds me of the legal debate over the precise meaning of "shall" - does it mean "can" or "must"?  

Anyway, it's easier for me to explain how I would like for the SCOTUS to interpret the amendment - which of course accords with my own preference.  

 

 

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Thanks for your response.  It sounds like my understanding of originalism was more or less the opposite of what I thought it was.  But I'll have to think about it some more and maybe do a little more reading.

This reminds me of studying philosophy. It's all so dependent on semantics, and I suppose - in the context of law - custom.  Literalism is easy enough to grasp, but "constructionism" ? 

This reminds me of the legal debate over the precise meaning of "shall" - does it mean "can" or "must"?  

Anyway, it's easier for me to explain how I would like for the SCOTUS to interpret the amendment - which of course accords with my own preference.  

 

 

 

 

I am an originalist, but there are compelling arguments on both sides. Consider the following dialogue (if you have lots of time to kill):

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 11/18/2022 at 10:38 AM, icanthearyou said:

All originalism is insanity. 

Then how do you deal with linguistic pejoration in legal texts? 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Then how do you deal with linguistic pejoration in legal texts? 

Can you provide an example?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Can you provide an example?

Sure. Here is a simple one. In an 18th-century writing, Queen Anne characterized St. Paul's Cathedral as "awful, artificial, and amusing."

Imagine you're asked to interpret the writing and simply explain what she meant. What's your answer? But do not contradict your previous charge: "All originalism is insanity."

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sure. Here is a simple one. In an 18th-century writing, Queen Anne characterized St. Paul's Cathedral as "awful, artificial, and amusing."

Imagine you're asked to interpret the writing and simply explain what she meant. What's your answer? But do not contradict your previous charge: "All originalism is insanity."

I'm sorry.  I do not see anything vague about those words.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

24 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I'm sorry.  I do not see anything vague about those words.

Then what do you think Queen Ann meant when she used them?