(July 31, 2021 at 4:40 pm)Nomad Wrote:(July 31, 2021 at 12:27 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I wonder if the reason that social conservatives are opposed to CRT is that they want to maintain the idea that the federal courts should interpret the Constitution principally from the framework of the Founding Fathers (whose number ranges from 7 to 13, depending on which scholar one asks). On the other hand, if historians can show (and, they have shown) that the Founding Fathers, while distinguished during their own time, nonetheless, had some ideas that the majority of individuals of our day would regard as being nutty, then the idea of the "textualist" view of the federal courts seems silly.
Re the bit I bolded; they can't even get that right. For example it is clear as day that the founding fathers vested the rights in the second amendment in the states and not in individuals, hence the "well regulated militia" clause. Also despite what "originalists" think, the first amendment doesn't privilege christianity, it tells all religions to butt out of secular business and the state will not impose its will on them.
I point out the Treaty of Tripoli to such folks:
Quote:Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Wikipedia: Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
