or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Ataturk

If you were going to make a dictionary entry or a wikipedia article on originalism you might include original intent since it's so often confused for it. Otherwise, original meaning is a dead letter. It survives basically as a misunderstanding, a straw man, or as an illustration of what originalism isn't.Does anyone actually advocate original intent at all? I was just trying to come up with a hyperbolic illustration of why intent's not the thing that matters.
Stop saying "original intent." That's not what originalism means, not what Scalia was famous for advocating. If Jefferson had secretly intended to sabotage the revolution when he wrote the declaration of independence, would that mean we'd still be part of Britain and have to leave the EU, too?Originalism looks at the meaning of what was actually written into law, at the time it was written.
All this talk about the text of the constitution and what it was understood to mean when it was written is dangerous. It's exactly what Scalia would have wanted us to do, to advance his right-wing agenda.
I'm a die-hard collective right guy, myself. "The people" in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the government. There is no individual right to keep and bear arms, just like there is no individual right to assemble. How can one person assemble? It makes no sense. And of course the right to petition the government for redress of grievances belongs to the government as well. Also, the fourth amendment -- "the right of the people to be secure in their...
Vice president Lynch?
That guy sounds dangerous!
Might be a colorable argument -- if he hadn't used the exact same words I used in the joke posted to this thread.
You're going on about subtlety and spoon feeding and critical thinking skills, and all that, but you still don't seem to realize that the comment you picked on was just a joke.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take this as a joke. Otherwise, damn.
What irritates me is that all these big developments are clumsy, forced rehashes of things that've already happened in the series. Dany murders her opponents and steals their forces! (twice before, twice again). An army rides in to save the day at the last minute when all seems lost (twice before). A Lannister orchestrates the mass murder of his or her opponents. A reluctant Stark is named king with ominous overtones. Arya murders someone!It's like Jar Jar Abrams...
New Posts  All Forums: