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

[Zorro!]

The Constitution was written in 1787. Germ theory didn't really exist until a few decades later.

My problem with originalism is trying to apply the original intent of a document to circumstances that they could have never conceived, such as what government powers exist during a pandemic.

Uhhh... they had Pandemics back then. The States have the necessary power to deal with pandemics.

 

[Zorro!]

Hence we place the nine most talented people in terms of law interpretation to decide this. Of course it is an art and not a science. How do you not know this? If law was a science we would not need judges and juries.

I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately that means originalism is a fantasy.

No it doesn't. Originalism deals with Constitutional text, Textualism deals with Laws. You want different laws, lobby your legislators.

You want Constitutional Amendments, lobby your State Legislatures.

Judges approaching the law properly, apply it to past facts, they do not rewrite laws, or the Constitution.

 

[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.

Sorry, but we are speaking past one another here. Your recommendation of that book, the full title of which is “Men in Black, How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America” is discouraging. The author is in my opinion not a thoughtful scholar on Constitutional Law but a political hack frequently appearing on The Rush Limbaugh Show. I’ve seen him on FOX news, as a contributor to The Sean Hannity Show, and he joined with Glenn Beck’s network The Blaze in 2018 to form Blaze Media.

Of course he has a right to his opinions, as do you, but I’m not interested in tracing the problems with our Court system back to Marbury vs. Madison. Levin’s views as expressed frequently on TV and rightwing media seem to have in his book (which I have not and do not plan to read) taken a peculiar form of “Originalism” which doesn’t interest me or most Constitutional or Court scholars, or SC Justices — be they appointed by Democrats or Republicans (as most now are).

The Supreme Court’s history and the country’s evolution have generally gone together, and when they have diverged it has generally been the Federal Courts that have ultimately had to catch up and deal with changing reality, not the other way around. In my opinion, any view that sees the Supreme Court or the Federal Court System as a key force destroying “America” ... really misses the whole point and problem.

Stay ignorant, I really don't care.

Since you have resorted to calling me “ignorant” ...

because I criticize a famous rightwing political journalist and associate of Glenn Beck whose book appears to sum up your views of the Supreme Court and its history...

even after my long posts here (starting with Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law. ) ...

I feel I should return the “favor” ...

not with an insult, but with my own book suggestion ...

Folks should read “We the Corporations.” It is a marvelous historical work by a Law Professor whose articles have appeared not in The Blaze but in the Wall Street Journal and many other publications :

Amazon.com: We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights (9781631495441): Winkler, Adam: Books

It's really not that hard, the Constitution itself says it's the supreme law of the land. Also men in black was started before Mark became a radio host. His major claim to fame is the Landmark Legal Foundation. And I would say he knows much more about the Constitution and court precedents than both of us combined.

BTW, I ordered the book you suggested, unlike you I have no aversion to learning something new.

.

 

[jc456]

Where in the constitution does it give demofks the right to kill babies?

The same place that allowed them to kill indians.

So you agree they kill babies. And, Indians fought back

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

Judging The constitution is about precedence.

Our constitution says thou shall not kill.

 

[Zorro!]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

Judging The constitution is about precedence.

Our constitution says thou shall not kill.

Our Constitution has no such phrase.

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

Judging The constitution is about precedence.

Our constitution says thou shall not kill.

Our Constitution has no such phrase.

I didn’t quote it did I?

 

[Zorro!]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

Judging The constitution is about precedence.

Our constitution says thou shall not kill.

Our Constitution has no such phrase.

I didn’t quote it did I?

Your point?

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

Judging The constitution is about precedence.

Our constitution says thou shall not kill.

Our Constitution has no such phrase.

I didn’t quote it did I?

Your point?

Constitution says murders against the law. That was that difficult for you?

 

[Zorro!]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

Judging The constitution is about precedence.

Our constitution says thou shall not kill.

Our Constitution has no such phrase.

I didn’t quote it did I?

Your point?

Constitution says murders against the law. That was that difficult for you?

Actually the Constitution only defines three crimes: Piracy, counterfeiting, and treason.

When the First Congress enacted the original Crimes Act in 1790, it stipulated only 17 federal crimes. Today, Congress own research service can't even count all the federal crimes on the books.

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

Judging The constitution is about precedence.

Our constitution says thou shall not kill.

Our Constitution has no such phrase.

I didn’t quote it did I?

Your point?

Constitution says murders against the law. That was that difficult for you?

Actually the Constitution only defines three crimes: Piracy, counterfeiting, and treason.

When the First Congress enacted the original Crimes Act in 1790, it stipulated only 17 federal crimes. Today, Congress own research service can't even count all the federal crimes on the books.

Actually...

Crimes Act of 1790 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Section	Common offense name	Text	Authorized sentence	Supreme Court cases
3	Murder	f any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dockyard, magazine, or in any other place, or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer death.

[TD]Death[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

 

[Zorro!]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

Judging The constitution is about precedence.

Our constitution says thou shall not kill.

Our Constitution has no such phrase.

I didn’t quote it did I?

Your point?

Constitution says murders against the law. That was that difficult for you?

Actually the Constitution only defines three crimes: Piracy, counterfeiting, and treason.

When the First Congress enacted the original Crimes Act in 1790, it stipulated only 17 federal crimes. Today, Congress own research service can't even count all the federal crimes on the books.

Actually...

Crimes Act of 1790 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Section	Common offense name	Text	Authorized sentence	Supreme Court cases
3	Murder	f any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dockyard, magazine, or in any other place, or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer death.

[TD]Death[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

Yes. Its against Federal Law to commit murder on Federal Property. Your point?

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope. I means the same thing as any other interpretation. It means "this is what I think they meant".

Based on precedent

Lol, if that was true then citizens united would never have happened and the new religious whack-job won't be able to overturn roe v wade.

Use your head for something besides holding up your hat once in a while.

Roe vs wade isn’t law. Congress has never written that. See constitutional

Your words were "based on precedent"

Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

Judging The constitution is about precedence.

Our constitution says thou shall not kill.

Our Constitution has no such phrase.

I didn’t quote it did I?

Your point?

Constitution says murders against the law. That was that difficult for you?

Actually the Constitution only defines three crimes: Piracy, counterfeiting, and treason.

When the First Congress enacted the original Crimes Act in 1790, it stipulated only 17 federal crimes. Today, Congress own research service can't even count all the federal crimes on the books.

Actually...

Crimes Act of 1790 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Section	Common offense name	Text	Authorized sentence	Supreme Court cases
3	Murder	f any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dockyard, magazine, or in any other place, or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer death.

[TD]Death[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

Yes. Its against Federal Law to commit murder on Federal Property. Your point?

I told the point posts ago. Killing babies

 

[PoliticalChic]

It still seems odd to look at the law for effect. Doesn't that seem to be looking for an outcome outside of what is actually written? The cases before the court are interpreting the constitutionality of a case, and not how to solve a problem. This all goes back to using amendments to solve conditions that exist in current times.

I get what you're saying, but why shouldn't the court consider the repercussions of their actions? If a decision follows some strict legal code but results in adverse consequence for the nation, is that a better outcome? For instance, the Dredd Scott decision rested on originalism but from our perspective, was a complete violation of fundamental human rights.

"For instance, the Dredd Scott decision rested on originalism but from our perspective, was a complete violation of fundamental human rights. "


No it didn't.
:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident... Declaration of ...



Roger Taney made a deal with Democrat Buchanan, pro-slavery.
That's always been the position of Democrats.

 

[jc456]

It still seems odd to look at the law for effect. Doesn't that seem to be looking for an outcome outside of what is actually written? The cases before the court are interpreting the constitutionality of a case, and not how to solve a problem. This all goes back to using amendments to solve conditions that exist in current times.

I get what you're saying, but why shouldn't the court consider the repercussions of their actions? If a decision follows some strict legal code but results in adverse consequence for the nation, is that a better outcome? For instance, the Dredd Scott decision rested on originalism but from our perspective, was a complete violation of fundamental human rights.

Like killing babies? Innocent human beings unable to protect them selves?

 

[justinacolmena]

I posted US v. Miller, which specifically excluded deposit slips and checks from 4th amendment (privacy) protection.

If a "concerned family member" files a "missing persons" report, then all bets are off.

Alaska State Legislature

www.akleg.gov

… Each law enforcement agency in the state with reason to believe a missing person is in the jurisdiction served by the agency shall accept a report of a missing person. A law enforcement agency may not refuse to accept a missing person report … The law enforcement agency shall notify the person making the report, a family member, or another person in a position to assist in the efforts to locate the missing person; the law enforcement agency … the law enforcement agency shall also notify the person of the specific information or materials needed, such as credit cards the missing person has access to, other banking information, and records of wireless telephone use; … shall notify the person making the report that any DNA samples provided for the missing person case are provided on a voluntary basis and may be used to help locate or identify the missing person;

Five Families - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New York Mafia: What's happening to the Five Families?

Frank Cali of New York's Gambino family was shot dead on Wednesday. Is the Mafia coming back?

www.bbc.com

Chicago Outfit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chicago Outfit consigliere Marco 'the Mover' D'Amico dead at age 84

For decades, Chicago mob boss Marco D'Amico was dogged by a bad mugshot depicting him with Coke-bottle glasses that magnified a pair of bulging eyeballs.

abc7chicago.com