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

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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.

Yes.

"...the right of the people....shall not be infringed...." does NOT mean, the right of the people shall be infringed.

Pretty simple really.

"The people", i.e. you can't outlaw gun ownership, but registering guns or preventing certain "persons" from owning guns is an entirely different story.

So there's no problem with voter ID then?

 

[colfax_m]

Boarders didn't exist?

Of course they did. What does borders have to do with whether you consider someone an illegal immigrant?

 

[progressive hunter]

of course it existed,,,

But it didn’t.

were you there???

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

So you want to make the point that illegals can't vote but they CAN be used to apportion representation?

 

[bendog]

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.

Will this mean less plenary power when dems in office and more when gopers are in office? There will still be plenary power, of that the gop will make sure.

No "Party" has "absolute" power.

Well that remains to be seen with the Barrett Court. That's why I posed it as a question. Originalism is no more workable 100% fo the time than anything. Plenary power just being an example. It's not spelled out but practice going back to the late 18th century made it necessary. I prefer textualism myself. But the question is will the Court apply its new found power evenly? I'm a cynic in this with Thomas and Alito. I'mnot totally trusting of Sonmayor either.

 

[colfax_m]

were you there???

No. Read a book.

 

[justinacolmena]

Its not the SCOTUS job to right wrongs, at all.

We're at war now, and U.S. law is a thing of the past. There is no Constitution and no justice in that court.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

What he cannot understand is context.

 

[progressive hunter]

were you there???

No. Read a book.

it must have been a problem or they wouldnt have built ellis island,,,

 

[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.

So you want to make the point that illegals can't vote but they CAN be used to apportion representation?

Well, yeah. Lots of people that can’t vote are included in apportionment. Children. Incompetent. Criminals. Resident aliens.

 

[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.

So you want to make the point that illegals can't vote but they CAN be used to apportion representation?

Well, yeah. Lots of people that can’t vote are included in apportionment. Children. Incompetent. Criminals. Resident aliens.

the difference here is the illegals arent supposed to be there,,,

 

[Dick Foster]

Who decides what it originally meant?

The English language isn't hard to interpret unless you want it to be. Kinda like what the asshole Clinton said when he said it depends on what is is. For one thing right then and there everyone knew that Clinton is a crooked asshole and there was no two ways about it.

 

[colfax_m]

were you there???

No. Read a book.

it must have been a problem or they wouldnt have built ellis island,,,

When was Ellis island built? Around 1890. About a hundred years after the constitution.

This should start clicking soon.

 

[progressive hunter]

were you there???

No. Read a book.

it must have been a problem or they wouldnt have built ellis island,,,

When was Ellis island built? Around 1890. About a hundred years after the constitution.

This should start clicking soon.

yeah It means it was a problem and a solution was needed,,,

they didnt just wake up one day and say "HEY I GOT AN IDEA",,,

 

[colfax_m]

yeah It means it was a problem and a solution was needed,,,

they didnt just wake up one day and say "HEY I GOT AN IDEA",,,

Sure. But this has nothing to do with originalism since these events occurred long after the founding fathers were dead and buried.

 

[Billiejeens]

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

It does not. It says persons.

Okay, let's use persons.

You say that there was no such thing as illegal aliens here, then.
Everyone was here legally, then.

The original intent was to count everyone, we have already established that every person here was here legally.

The original intent was to count everyone here legally.

That is now undisputed as fact.

 

[DGS49]

When considering the import of "originalism," ponder the fact that there is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution. There are privacy rights...you and your home and your car cannot be searched just because the Police are curious or because someone suspects that you are a bad guy. That is a privacy right, but it is not a Right of Privacy - which does not exist.

But the Supreme Court decided that somewhere amongst the "emanations and penumbras" in the Constitution, there is a "right of privacy."

So what? Well, before the Supreme Court discovered the [non-existent] right of privacy, in most states homosexual sodomy was a crime. And we had a couple hundred years of enforcement of such laws, and nobody even thought to question them as violations of the [non-existent] Right of Privacy.

The "right" to obtain an abortion is also based on this [non-existent] Right of Privacy.

 

[colfax_m]

The original intent was to count everyone here legally.

That’s not original intent. You’re applying a concept to their intent that they didn’t even have. It’s literally impossible to say this was their intent.

You can believe that, but you are no longer an originalist.

 

[Billiejeens]

When considering the import of "originalism," ponder the fact that there is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution. There are privacy rights...you and your home and your car cannot be searched just because the Police are curious or because someone suspects that you are a bad guy. That is a privacy right, but it is not a Right of Privacy - which does not exist.

But the Supreme Court decided that somewhere amongst the "emanations and penumbras" in the Constitution, there is a "right of privacy."

So what? Well, before the Supreme Court discovered the [non-existent] right of privacy, in most states homosexual sodomy was a crime. And we had a couple hundred years of enforcement of such laws, and nobody even thought to question them as violations of the [non-existent] Right of Privacy.

The "right" to obtain an abortion is also based on this [non-existent] Right of Privacy.

Left wing judicial activism, is really all they have.
That's why its so important to them.
The left constantly finds laws that people who had to get reelected would never try to pass.
They are masters at using unelected life time appointment surrogates to govern.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

So you want to make the point that illegals can't vote but they CAN be used to apportion representation?

Well, yeah. Lots of people that can’t vote are included in apportionment. Children. Incompetent. Criminals. Resident aliens.

Nope. You need to understand that Constitution is not made up of separate, unrelated passages.
Each section builds on the last.....

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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.

The Constitution: Amendments 11-27

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what is known as The Bill of Rights. Amendments 11-27 are listed below. AMENDMENT XI Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution...

www.archives.gov

The entire context revolves around citizenship. Sorry son.