re: The problem with lawyers and constitutional interpretations

quote:

---

Or maybe Scalia is just another lawyer who uses whatever framework they need in the moment to win a particular argument. And then they become strict whatever-else-ists in the next argument.

---

That's possible, I'm not a court junkie. From this layman's perspective he appeared to be as consistent as any of them and he typically leaned towards restraint, not legislation via judicial fiat.

And his prediction in the DOMA dissent was dead accurate.

I’m not a Scalia hater.

But it is hilarious seeing VOR try to make anyone view Scalia as having the imprimatur of correct legal thinking

Next time a cop or an overeager DA decides to have "fun" with your rights, handle it yourself, then tell me what prison you will be residing in.....and for how long.

quote:

---

You think that one quote accurately represents his thinking on the topic?

Surely not.

---

I actually had much better quotes in the early WKA discussions.

Scalia's originalist textualism rejects legislative history and looked to the meaning of the words at the time they were written.

Again, if you want to see a great example of this analysis, WKA does this in painstaking detail.

quote:

---

WKA does this in painstaking detail.

---

And gets it exactly incorrect.

That cool judge got that Chinaman into the US though. So we have that going for us.

quote:

---

You generally had to be white and Protestant.

---

Wrong.

There were no immigration requirements in 1868. We didn't start restricting immigrants until we decided that there were too many coolies coming in to the country

"During the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, the United States had limited regulation of immigration and naturalization at a national level. Under a mostly prevailing "open border" policy, immigration was generally welcomed, although citizenship was limited to "white persons" as of 1790, and naturalization was subject to five-year residency requirement as of 1802. Passports and visas were not required for entry into America; rules and procedures for arriving immigrants were determined by local ports of entry or state laws. Processes for naturalization were determined by local county courts."
- Wiki

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
LINK

It wouldn't be until the Page Act of 1875 when immigration would be limited - and then only, "at in determining whether the immigration of any subject of China, Japan, or any Oriental country, to the United States".

From the ratification of the Constitution in 1787 to 1875, 88 years, the nation operated with an open border policy.

Well shite. I’m in. Let’s go back to just letting white folk be citizens.

Or is your argument completely incoherent versus the information you shared?

quote:

---

From the ratification of the Constitution in 1787 to 1875, 88 years, the nation operated with an open border policy.

---

That was my understanding as well. Thanks for running that down. I look forward to reading the factual rebuttal to your comment. I'm sure it will be free from personal attack.

I don’t share your trust in our justice system.

I agree that we shouldn’t be bound by the whims of whoever happens to have been installed in the White House.

No one is going to seriously tackle the issue of immigration. Judges are interested in navel gazing. Congresspersons are interested in donations. Business are interested in new customers and cheap labor.

And Joe Public is left holding the bag. But at least we can all yell “Due process” at the drop of a hat.