Originally Posted by wdmso
So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit
I quoted their exact words "keep and bear". Keep (own) and "bear" (carry)--own arms that can be carried. I didn't make those words up. Either those words mean something, or they're superfluous, meaning nothing. Unless a Progressive interprets them to mean something other than what they mean.
You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position
1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]
When a judge interprets the constitutional text to mean something other than what it means, he/she is not acting as an "originalist" no matter what label is applied to him/her. If they claim to be an "originalist," but they interpret law as a Progressive at times, or always, then they are hypocrites, not originalists--at least in those times when they interpret outside the bounds of originalism.
2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]
If a judge invokes "intent," it has to be backed up by the framers' written intent. If it is merely the judge's opinion, that is not original interpretation. No matter how convenient it may be, it is Progressive in nature, not originalist.
3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]
It is meant to be a "difficult, time consuming task," otherwise it is subject to the same facile means of duping the people into a really good sounding quick fix, rather than the difficult, time consuming task of debate, presentation of evidence and facts, determining the intents, objectives, and possible outcomes. Hammering out a constitution was a difficult, time consuming task. Amending it should not be greatly less so. Otherwise, it is the more so subject to being as bad as the "bad law" that needs amending.
4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]
No, it is a binding contract whether the citizens agree or not. Just as any legal contract, it binds those under it whether they agree or not. If enough citizens wish to nullify the contract there is that difficult time consuming method described in number three.
5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]
If they make bad laws, they most likely are not applying originalism. And leaving it up to the courts to amend is bad law. The citizens must amend, not the courts. When the courts amend, they are acting as Progressives, not originalists.
The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”
It is difficult trending to impossible to get two or more different people to view events from the same perspective, and having the same information. In structured societies, the people must simply come to some agreement, then abide by it.
Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|