Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

[meaner gene]

You won't find the right to vote in the constitution either.

See Article 1 Section 2, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments

.

You fell for it.

Since the "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia

You may have never learned that the constitution doesn't give the people the right to vote for president, and in the first presidential election it gives absolute proof.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

No where in the Constitution did the founders conflate the rights of the people with States rights and powers or the powers granted to the federal government. The people always carries a meaning of individual citizens.

Well, there remains the Preamble to the Constitution, which I think pretty definitely establishes that the very sovereignty upon which the whole structure of the Constitution rests is “We the People” — a very collective concept if ever there was one. Also there is the usually ignored Ninth Amendment, which argues “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It does not specify “by indIviduals.” Of course the history of case law, precedent, tradition, Supreme Court rulings, all evolved along with private property’s evolution (into powerful corporate form). This evolution has indeed relegated the words of the Preamble about promoting “the general welfare” almost moot ...

 

[meaner gene]

No it said a banks compliance with a duly issued subpoena didn't violate the 4th Amendment rights of the individual. Learn how to read.

Revisit US V Miler. It said that bank records were not "personal" records, and had no 4th amendment protections.

YOu seem to be arguing for the point of arguing, not that what I said was any different from what you said.

 

[OKTexas]

Adhering to "originalism" would result in this woman not being where she is in life.

She would have been relegated to a life in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

OMG you're such a liar.

.

 

[OKTexas]

You won't find the right to vote in the constitution either.

See Article 1 Section 2, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments

.

You fell for it.

Since the "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia

You may have never learned that the constitution doesn't give the people the right to vote for president, and in the first presidential election it gives absolute proof.

Poor little commie, you can't deny or abridge a right if it doesn't exist in the first place.

.

 

[meaner gene]

Adhering to "originalism" would result in this woman not being where she is in life.

She would have been relegated to a life in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

OMG you're such a liar.

.

It would be perfectly legal for a president to exclude women from his appointments to federal positions, including the courts, executive agencies and the military.

 

[meaner gene]

Poor little commie, you can't deny or abridge a right if it doesn't exist in the first place.

.

Sure you can. The endangered species act still continues to cover species after they have gone extinct.

Before the 17th state legislatures decided how to select senators, and they could let the people vote, or they could chose them directly. The 15th didn't give people the right to vote for president or senator.

 

[OKTexas]

No where in the Constitution did the founders conflate the rights of the people with States rights and powers or the powers granted to the federal government. The people always carries a meaning of individual citizens.

Well, there remains the Preamble to the Constitution, which I think pretty definitely establishes that the very sovereignty upon which the whole structure of the Constitution rests is “We the People” — a very collective concept if ever there was one. Also there is the usually ignored Ninth Amendment, which argues “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It does not specify “by indIviduals.” Of course the history of case law, precedent, tradition, Supreme Court rulings, all evolved along with private property’s evolution (into powerful corporate form). This evolution has indeed relegated the words of the Preamble about promoting “the general welfare” almost moot ...

Are "the people" not comprised of individuals? Also activist courts have almost rendered all of Article 1, Section 8 which enumerates the majority of governments powers, moot.

If you want a good education on the topic I suggest you read Men in Black, by Mark Levin. It has a lot of technical language which make is somewhat hard to read by a layman, but it's worth the time.

.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society

She's sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court. It is quite literally her job to right wrongs in society. Why else would we even a court system? That attitude leaves the door wide open for unrepentant crime, unredressed grievances, and unavenged evil.

ISAIAH 59:14 KJV And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street,...

Isaiah 59:14 KJV: And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.

And in the deadness of the letter of the law without the spirit.

Its not the SCOTUS job to right wrongs, at all.
They simply say whether laws written by congress and signed into law are in line with the constitution

No judge is supposed to right wrongs.

 

[MarathonMike]

So let’s begin with a definition. In short, originalism is the idea that the words of the Constitution are the law, and they should be understood to mean what they meant when they were written and ratified. While this proposition is straightforward, the implications are profound. As Judge Barrett explains, the Constitution’s “meaning doesn’t change over time,” and as a judge, she does not have authority “to update it or infuse (her) own policy views into it.”

In other words, the Constitution doesn’t mean whatever you or I might want it to mean. The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society or ensuring that my preferred policies prevail even when they lose at the ballot box. The Constitution, as ratified by the people, means what it says. And constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.

Judges looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will not always agree. The law can be obscure and complex, and the Supreme Court decides hard questions on which smart people have probably disagreed. But originalist judges recognize an obligation to faithfully interpret the law as written even when the answer is difficult to discern.

Opinion: Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.

Originalism is a commitment to interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

www.jsonline.com

An opinion piece but I agree with Originalism.

Leftists believe the Constitution is a piece of crap that they need to "transform". Originalism infuriates them, because it stands in their way.

 

[meaner gene]

24th amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

This didn't grant convicted felons the right to vote. As you said

Poor little commie, you can't deny or abridge a right if it doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[Nostra]

You won't find the right to vote in the constitution either.

See Article 1 Section 2, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments

.

You fell for it.

Since the "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia

You may have never learned that the constitution doesn't give the people the right to vote for president, and in the first presidential election it gives absolute proof.

It it isn't a "right", why does the Constitution explicitly say the it can't be denied or abridged?

 

[meaner gene]

Leftists believe the Constitution is a piece of crap that they need to "transform". Originalism infuriates them, because it stands in their way.

Pure originalism says that freedom of the press doesn't include the internet.

Even originalists accept the changing of meanings in the constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

No it said a banks compliance with a duly issued subpoena didn't violate the 4th Amendment rights of the individual. Learn how to read.

Revisit US V Miler. It said that bank records were not "personal" records, and had no 4th amendment protections.

YOu seem to be arguing for the point of arguing, not that what I said was any different from what you said.

Once again, learn how to read. It said there was no due process issue with the bank complying with a subpoena, which satisfies the 4th Amendment protections. It didn't say bank or other business records weren't private.

.

 

[Nostra]

No it said a banks compliance with a duly issued subpoena didn't violate the 4th Amendment rights of the individual. Learn how to read.

Revisit US V Miler. It said that bank records were not "personal" records, and had no 4th amendment protections.

YOu seem to be arguing for the point of arguing, not that what I said was any different from what you said.

Once again, learn how to read. It said there was no due process issue with the bank complying with a subpoena, which satisfies the 4th Amendment protections. It didn't say bank or other business records weren't private.

.

You are dealing with an idiot who thinks that if any subpoena gave the right of the govt to see something on an individual basis, the govt has the right to see that same info on anyone and everyone in the US.

In short, he is a blithering idiot.

 

[meaner gene]

It it isn't a "right", why does the Constitution explicitly say the it can't be denied or abridged?

Actually it says can't be abridged due to certain factors. But none of them acknowledge the franchise.

Even to this day, people don't get to vote for president, which a right to vote would abhor.

 

[Nostra]

It it isn't a "right", why does the Constitution explicitly say the it can't be denied or abridged?

Actually it says can't be abridged due to certain factors. But none of them acknowledge the franchise.

Even to this day, people don't get to vote for president, which a right to vote would abhor.

What can't be "abridged"?

 

[meaner gene]

Once again, learn how to read. It said there was no due process issue with the bank complying with a subpoena, which satisfies the 4th Amendment protections. It didn't say bank or other business records weren't private.

Privacy is protected by the 4th amendment.

If it's not protected by the 4th, it's not private.

 

[Nostra]

Once again, learn how to read. It said there was no due process issue with the bank complying with a subpoena, which satisfies the 4th Amendment protections. It didn't say bank or other business records weren't private.

Privacy is protected by the 4th amendment.

If it's not protected by the 4th, it's not private.

What isn't protected by the 4th?

Be specific.

Make a list and cite the court cases to back you up.

 

[OKTexas]

Adhering to "originalism" would result in this woman not being where she is in life.

She would have been relegated to a life in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

OMG you're such a liar.

.

It would be perfectly legal for a president to exclude women from his appointments to federal positions, including the courts, executive agencies and the military.

Appointments are a lot different than hiring. And no he can't unilaterally exclude women from military service. Hell the court has said military academies have to admit women. See US v. Virginia.

.