apparently doesn't include women.14th amendment said:"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."
In all seriousness I do see what he's trying to say, but I don't agree with that approach to interpreting the Constitution.But them dames have a right to bake me a pie, amirite?
Good thing he's considered the intellectual one on the conservative side.
He's not strictly interpreting the Constitution. He's attempting to make the Constitution back up his own views of the world, no matter how skewed. Same tactic is used by religious fanatics.In all seriousness I do see what he's trying to say, but I don't agree with that approach to interpreting the Constitution.
I don't totally agree with that kind of view constitutional understanding but I get it and I don't think what he's actually talking about is quite the "woman-hating" crazytalk the fun folks at the huffpo want you to think it is. I think he's talking about original intent here and whether or not 9 judges should be allowed to change it from what he perceives as the original intent of the authors.You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
What do you do when the original meaning of a constitutional provision is either in doubt or is unknown?
I do not pretend that originalism is perfect.
I'm sorry, you seem to think we were fighting over something? I don't need to explain why I agree or disagree with his view because I'm not defending it. All I've said is that I don't have a problem with the variety of views that are used to interpret it and that I think it's good to have that variety on the bench. You seem to hold to the view that he and anyone who agrees with him are "doing it wrong" and honestly I think thats as close minded as anyone who think you or judges who agree with you are "doing it wrong". I don't think there is one, definitive way to read historical documents, theres just to many factors that go into understanding older texts. Thats why I'm cool with a variety of those views in the Supreme Court.@Espy- Did you even read the link I posted? From what you replied, it doesn't seem like it. You didn't dispute any of the concerns I had, you just said "Well, people will think different, ho hum!" Ayeah, I know people will think differently on things. How about explaining why you agree or disagree with his view on how to interpret the constitution beyond 'it hasn't concerned me so far'.
Or make some outlandish claim that they are the brilliant soul who knows exactly what I intended to say with my post and everyone who disagrees is a powder head.Ah, but if you don't spell out exactly what you intend with your post, then perhaps a hundred years from now someone will completely misinterpret what your post actually means...
This is pretty much what I was trying to get at. The majority views on interpreting the constitution all have their strengths and flaws and all have their place at the table.At any rate, originalism isn't absurd any more than saying that the constitution changes over time merely because our language and culture changes. I believe there's a balance to be struck between the two.
As i recall some of the people that contributed to making the document in question did write about freeing the slaves and other progressive stuff like that... so i wouldn't really discount it as an intention just because social and economical(sp?) reasons didn't allow for that.We have significant historical documentation and data that suggests his analysis is correct. No one is claiming that the original intent is different than what he's saying. Are you asserting that the original writers truly meant all people, men and women, and truly meant all forms of discrimination?
Textualism is pretty stupid, though.This is pretty much what I was trying to get at. The majority views on interpreting the constitution all have their strengths and flaws and all have their place at the table.
Wait, wait, wait... you're telling me that i don't have the right to take bear's arms and stockpile them?! Man, then i mauled all those bears for nothing...The "right to bear arms" doesn't mean I get to swap my limbs with Yogi, even if they have an inherent advantage in getting picinic baskets.