(February 10, 2017 at 12:04 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: I'm curious whether you've read much of the material presented to the courts in some of these cases before you decided "originalists" interpret the Constitution using 20th century grammar? I ask because I have read some of the material available, and that is not what I found. In fact the opposite seems to be true. It is often the people arguing against the findings of the "originalists" that are attempting to redefine or limit the meaning of things found in the Constitution.
There's an obvious example; The second amendment. Originally meant to signal that the US army would be a citizen militia staffed by volunteer citizens who would have the right to bear arms in order to carry out their duty, the "originalists" have reinterpreted the amendment to "everybody, git yer guns!"
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home