Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So is the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment.
Yep, it's pretty clear it wasn't intended for what the left has been using it for.
It says what it says. I believe in originalism and textualism but not in the strict sense. In order for Trump to win the amendment would have to be textually changed which is extremely hard to do particularly in this political climate where we don’t have a working government.
I wasn't asking about your position on Constitutional interpretation. I don't care about that.
When a law is written that vaguely, then it would do exactly what you think is silly. That's probably why trash disposal ordinances have upper limits on fines instead and most sentencing gives discretion to judges to ... make judgements. (Odd that.)Pretend I was making a provision, ***disclaimer - I got stuck working all day and I'm tired so apologies if this isn't as intricate as my other famous analogies that I know you love so much***
Ex:
I'm living in a time there's a major issue with authorities across the country (corruptly) using waste disposal laws to punish people/entities they don't like, "ah, you didn't separate your trash properly, that's a $10,000 fine"
If my solution to address that problem was passing something with the text "government shall not place financial burdens on individuals on the basis of improper refuse disposal"
It'd be silly for someone 75 years from now to use a strict textualist read on what I said to try to make a case that "My company can dump toxic sludge in the river upstream of the town water supply, and you can't touch me...look at what Rob said, the text is very clear"
This is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment:
That's an oxymoron... textualism by it's very nature requires strictness.
What is the precedent for that sentiment?
That seems to have been a point made in the oral arguments.
Not really. You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Textualism focuses on the objective, ordinary meaning of a text and its context, it permits a reasonable
That’s not true. SCOTUS has always ruled on interpretation but in this case interpretation is not what is at stake but the very words of the amendment. I think they are going to rule against him.
It is not a modification of an amendment at all. There was no prior amendment on the election of Senators to modify.
There is a difference and that you don't see it is odd since I know you had to work through at least some basic logic to get your degree.
Because your legal analysis is bad and I am weary of your "examples".
Congress had general legislative powers "promote the General Welfare" and "regulate Commerce between the States".
Well, the bolded just reveals your ignorance. They had rapid-fire guns, including early machine guns, at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. And owning literal cannons was part of the amendment. So no, they very much could have imagined how sophisticated weapons could get. Because they were already becoming that sophisticated.
pacificlegal.org
But the very words of several amendments get neutered based on several other rulings across a wide variety of topics. Pure textualism has never been a basis for modern constitutional interpretation. If it was, then literally any legal challenge to any gun control law or speech restriction measure or any government agency that runs afoul of the 10th amendment (which is most of them) would be a no brainer.
How many states currently have a voting age lower than 18 for federal elections?
Seems like a broad "catch-all" that definitely wouldn't fit with a strict textualist reading of the constitution.
I’m in agreement with Justice Scalia.What is the difference between originalism vs. textualism vs. living constitutionalism?
Originalism vs. textualism are the terms we usually hear during high-profile Supreme Court cases. But what does originalism vs. textualism exactly mean?
Textualism is the theory that we should interpret legal texts, including the Constitution, based on the text’s ordinary meaning. A textualist ignores factors outside the text, such as the problem the law is addressing or what the law’s drafters may have intended.
Textualism does not focus on the problem it was aimed at addressing, that would be purposivism - which is a different constitutional school of thought that I noted earlier.
But the very words of several amendments get neutered based on several other rulings across a wide variety of topics. Pure textualism has never been a basis for modern constitutional interpretation. If it was, then literally any legal challenge to any gun control law or speech restriction measure or any government agency that runs afoul of the 10th amendment (which is most of them) would be a no brainer.
Were those rapid fire guns easily accessible or affordable to common guy on the streets?
I suspected you were on the wrong side, but I couldn't tell.
The US always had birthright citizenship in common law. What changed with Dred Scot was that the court declared that races could be excluded from citizenship. A "no race restriction" clause was needed. Black descendants of slaves weren't the only racial group some would wish to exclude: Chinese, Indians, probably Mexicans were potentially excluded. Congress knew that the race clause with open birthright citizenship to all of those except Indians as they had unique legal relations to the US government. They included it anyway.
A very minor concern, but even in 1868 one could travel from nearby parts of Canada to give birth. It also only took about 10 days to cross the Atlantic at that time on a steamship.
