Originalism: the narrow, fixed in time interpretation of the US Constitution is flawed and wrong

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Every time someone, anyone is claiming the privilege and prerogative to read the intent that was not expressed explicitly, it's a symptom of at least one of the:

- They consider the original creators inferior to themselves (they couldn't formulate the norm explicitly, in a clear and transparent language)

- They seek the exclusive control over the reading and interpretation of the text.

Either of the claims is plainly outlandish, and one can be particularly dangerous.

myata pines for a day when the US Constitution will reflect DEI policy. lol

Edited September 5, 2024 by Deluge

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Book is not a replacement nor alternative to the reality that is staring us in the eyes. That idea can also be dangerous.

Spam spam spam spam... 

[User]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Book is not a replacement nor alternative to the reality that is staring us in the eyes. That idea can also be dangerous.

Again, you are having trouble here... 

"Separation of Powers. The Executive appoints the Judiciary with Senate Confirmation. The people can elect both the Executive and Senate. Congress can impeach the judiciary. States and Congress can pass Amendments to the Constitution. 

There is not closed exclusive access to the Constitution. 

This stuff is taught in grade school for crying out loud. This is basic civics."

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, User said:

Again, you are having trouble here... 

"Separation of Powers. The Executive appoints the Judiciary with Senate Confirmation. The people can elect both the Executive and Senate. Congress can impeach the judiciary. States and Congress can pass Amendments to the Constitution. 

There is not closed exclusive access to the Constitution. 

This stuff is taught in grade school for crying out loud. This is basic civics."

For your next trick, lets see you teach advanced calculus to a labradoodle. 

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Every time someone, anyone is claiming the privilege and prerogative to read the intent that was not expressed explicitly, it's a symptom of at least one of the:

- They consider the original creators inferior to themselves (they couldn't formulate the norm explicitly, in a clear and transparent language)

- They seek the exclusive control over the reading and interpretation of the text.

Either of the claims is plainly outlandish, and one can be particularly dangerous.

Ok...I figured this out. This guy has to be parroting Thom Hartman. The illogical logic was a give away.

[impartialobserver]

as with all things.. folks can't make up their minds. Should something from the past be interpreted strictly literally or should be the context be taken into account. As with all things, the approach changes depending on which furthers the agenda. Nothing that most people do not already know .

[myata]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

As with all things, the approach changes depending on which furthers the agenda.

And the question is then: who gets to decide? If this trend is allowed to run its course we'll end up with a bunch of old folk in fancy robes rolling the dice, reading coffee, stars or any other fancy way to decide, today we'll be reading it literally but tomorrow discover a hidden intent that they just couldn't formulate themselves. And would it be any new either? No way.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Ok...I figured this out. This guy has to be parroting Thom Hartman. The illogical logic was a give away.

I don't think we should be so quick to rule out drug abuse

[User]

7 hours ago, myata said:

And the question is then: who gets to decide? If this trend is allowed to run its course we'll end up with a bunch of old folk in fancy robes rolling the dice, reading coffee, stars or any other fancy way to decide, today we'll be reading it literally but tomorrow discover a hidden intent that they just couldn't formulate themselves. And would it be any new either? No way.

Again, you are having trouble here... 

"Separation of Powers. The Executive appoints the Judiciary with Senate Confirmation. The people can elect both the Executive and Senate. Congress can impeach the judiciary. States and Congress can pass Amendments to the Constitution. 

There is not closed exclusive access to the Constitution. 

This stuff is taught in grade school for crying out loud. This is basic civics."