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

[colfax_m]

Are you a Brit?

Why did you call me a British?

 

[JustAGuy1]

Are you a Brit?

Why did you call me a British?

Deflect much?

 

[JustAGuy1]

Are you a Brit?

Why did you call me a British?

Back to the Constitution, does it mention Citizens in the context of apportionment?

 

[colfax_m]

Deflect much?

Deflection? You called me British and I asked why. You’re deflecting from my question.

 

[colfax_m]

Back to the Constitution, does it mention Citizens in the context of apportionment?

Did you look it up?

 

[JustAGuy1]

Back to the Constitution, does it mention Citizens in the context of apportionment?

Did you look it up?

I don't have to, I know what it says. Answer the question.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't have to, I know what it says. Answer the question.

It does not. It says persons.

 

[JustAGuy1]

I don't have to, I know what it says. Answer the question.

It does not. It says persons.

Keep reading.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Who decides what it originally meant?

Common sense decides. That's why leftists dont understand its greatness.

 

[justinacolmena]

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.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't have to, I know what it says. Answer the question.

It does not. It says persons.

Keep reading.

You should have looked it up. I don’t think you know as much as you think. The apportionment clause says persons. It’s pretty to the point. You can keep reading but it moves on to other issues.

 

[Billiejeens]

Who decides what it originally meant?

Common sense decides. That's why leftists dont understand its greatness.

Some truth to all of that.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't have to, I know what it says. Answer the question.

It does not. It says persons.

Keep reading.

You should have looked it up. I don’t think you know as much as you think. The apportionment clause says persons. It’s pretty to the point. You can keep reading but it moves on to other issues.

but it doesnt say criminals illegally in the country and hiding from the police,,,

 

[Nostra]

I don't have to, I know what it says. Answer the question.

It does not. It says persons.

Keep reading.

You should have looked it up. I don’t think you know as much as you think. The apportionment clause says persons. It’s pretty to the point. You can keep reading but it moves on to other issues.

Perhaps YOU should have looked it up, Limey hack.



Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

[colfax_m]

but it doesnt say criminals illegally in the country and hiding from the police,,,

It doesn’t. And as I said before, the very concept of illegal immigration didn’t even exist for another 100 years.

So whatever the court decides, it isn’t going to be based on originalists because it needs to consider a concept that didn’t even originally exist.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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.

My problem with NOT applying original intent is efforts to "interpret" around the original intent, RATHER THAN AMENDING!!!

If the Constitution does not work, AMEND IT!!!



That's the whole point of the Amendment process. There is a mechanism for updating the document...QUIT IGNORING IT!!!

Exactly. But leftist believe that's to hard to achieve. They want their way now!

 

[Billiejeens]

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

 

[progressive hunter]

but it doesnt say criminals illegally in the country and hiding from the police,,,

It doesn’t. And as I said before, the very concept of illegal immigration didn’t even exist for another 100 years.

So whatever the court decides, it isn’t going to be based on originalists because it needs to consider a concept that didn’t even originally exist.

of course it existed,,,

it was just ignored because the numbers didnt mean much,,, now they mean a lot and more so since most of them are a burden not an asset,,,

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

but it doesnt say criminals illegally in the country and hiding from the police,,,

It doesn’t. And as I said before, the very concept of illegal immigration didn’t even exist for another 100 years.

So whatever the court decides, it isn’t going to be based on originalists because it needs to consider a concept that didn’t even originally exist.

Boarders didn't exist?

 

[colfax_m]

of course it existed,,,

But it didn’t.