- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Birthright citizenship - Library of congress deleted history!
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:26 pm
8
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:27 pm to Ailsa
"The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy".
"I don't care what the legislators intended. I care what the fair meaning of [a] word is".
"It is the last surviving legal fiction in American law that legislative history reflects the purpose of the Congress. It does not".
"The more you use [legislative history], the phonier it will become. Downtown Washington law firms make it their business to create legislative history; that is a regular part of their practice".
"Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision. Not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that but the text of the statute".
-Antonin Scalia
"I don't care what the legislators intended. I care what the fair meaning of [a] word is".
"It is the last surviving legal fiction in American law that legislative history reflects the purpose of the Congress. It does not".
"The more you use [legislative history], the phonier it will become. Downtown Washington law firms make it their business to create legislative history; that is a regular part of their practice".
"Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision. Not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that but the text of the statute".
-Antonin Scalia
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
Are you a textualist and do you agree with each of those quotes?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:35 pm to Ailsa
Muh texshualism!
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:39 pm to AllbyMyRelf
Yes.
That was also the common sentiment on here prior to 2016. Hell, it's still the professed preferred interpretive method of conservatives when it serves their team identity.
That's why Scalia is held as the golden standard on here as Supreme Court justices go.
This ruling is going to be a test to see whether Clarence Thomas rejects his textual roots and adopts the living document method. That is the preferred method of leftists.
That was also the common sentiment on here prior to 2016. Hell, it's still the professed preferred interpretive method of conservatives when it serves their team identity.
That's why Scalia is held as the golden standard on here as Supreme Court justices go.
This ruling is going to be a test to see whether Clarence Thomas rejects his textual roots and adopts the living document method. That is the preferred method of leftists.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Antonin Scalia
How can one be both an originalist and a textualist at the same time?
He was.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
The Legislative History of a statute is there to provide insight into the reasoning underlying the passing of the statute and I disagree with anybody who contradicts that, no matter who it might be.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
If you want to interpret the law with textualism, that’s fine.
Just don’t pretend that is what the authors of the legislation intended.
Just don’t pretend that is what the authors of the legislation intended.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:44 pm to the808bass
All originalists are textualists, but not all textualists are originalists.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:45 pm to Champagne
quote:
The Legislative History of a statute is there to provide insight into the reasoning underlying the passing of the statute and I disagree with anybody who contradicts that, no matter who it might be.
The first assault of postmodernism was upon language. We haven’t recovered from it.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don’t know about on here (PoliTalk) specifically, but in the conservative legal circles I’m in, textualism is not stressed so much any more. Scalia is still beloved, but Thomas moreso. The admiration, I think, comes from originalism rather than textualism.
The living document method is a polemic to originalism, not textualism, as I understand it. One can hold that a law has a fixed, objective meaning while also holding purposive leanings on how to resolve ambiguities.
The living document method is a polemic to originalism, not textualism, as I understand it. One can hold that a law has a fixed, objective meaning while also holding purposive leanings on how to resolve ambiguities.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:46 pm to kingbob
quote:This is not true.
All originalists are textualists, but not all textualists are originalists.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:48 pm to the808bass
I agree with this.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:49 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
This is not true.
An originalist's stance is that the text means what it says (textualism), and that it means what it said at the time it was written. A textualist can be a living constitutionist simply by assuming that the text "means what it says" when applying the current definition of the word. An originalist perspective is that man changes, but law is frozen in amber at the time it was written, and further changes require amending the law. The only other possibility is that the law naturally changes, that the law is alive and changes with language.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:49 pm to the808bass
quote:
Just don’t pretend that is what the authors of the legislation intended.
Author's. Singular.
He was only one vote in the entire process.
And this is the fundamental flaw in this analysis. You have to mind read each voter's view of the law, while ignoring the actual text of the statute.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:50 pm to the808bass
quote:
The first assault of postmodernism was upon language. We haven’t recovered from it.
You say this while attacking analyzing the actual words used in a statute.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:51 pm to Champagne
quote:
The Legislative History of a statute is there to provide insight into the reasoning underlying the passing of the statute
The insight of only an extreme minority of participants in the vote for that statute.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:54 pm to kingbob
Again, this is not completely true.
As you said, an originalist holds that the law’s meaning is fixed from its promulgation. Its meaning does not change.
Many, a vast majority, of originalists are textualists, but not all. When there is an ambiguity in the text, an originalist can use textual methods for resolution (canons of interpretation) or an originalist can look at what the purpose of the law was in order to ascertain its original meaning.
Both are originalist, but one is textualist.
As you said, an originalist holds that the law’s meaning is fixed from its promulgation. Its meaning does not change.
Many, a vast majority, of originalists are textualists, but not all. When there is an ambiguity in the text, an originalist can use textual methods for resolution (canons of interpretation) or an originalist can look at what the purpose of the law was in order to ascertain its original meaning.
Both are originalist, but one is textualist.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
while ignoring the actual text of the statute.
It doesn't ignore the text of the 14th Amendment. It is explaining the portion "and subject to the jurisdiction therein". The passage is clarifying who is subject to that jurisdiction and who is not. It's a pretty important bit of context when trying to understand the amendment, is it not?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:56 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Scalia is still beloved, but Thomas moreso.
Thomas, at least until the last few years, held the same positions on legislative intent.
The question is if he's shed decades of his judicial philosophy for more of a partisanly opportunistic philosophy, and this case is likely going to decide that.
Originalism has kind of been spun off into a million ways but it's most often used as a specific form of textualism. Scalia, again, can distinguish the two
quote:
The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.
That's why I just use textualist, because it's really what's being discussed in 99.9% of these conversations.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News