9th Circuit Tells the WLB to Go Fuck Himself

[popeyespappy]

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!"

Did you read the example I included with my post? It was about District of Columbia v. Heller. The case where SCOTUS ruled the second amendment was an individual right. In that case much of the evidence presented in support of an individual right was commentary from the time the Bill of Rights was written by the people involved. People who would have known what the original intent was. The arguments against an individual right were for the most part decades or even centuries after the fact. The legal team arguing against an individual right even included an argument in the lower courts that congress had changed the meaning of militia from what the founders intended after the fact.

I believe this because I have read at a lot of the case information myself. The ruling, dissenting opinion and several of the amicus briefs from both sides. So I'll ask my original question again. Have you read any of the arguments presented to the courts in cases that were decided on the basis of the court's opinion of original intent before you declared the originalists were changing definitions to suit themselves, or are you basing your opinion on something you heard someone else say? i.e. hearsay.