re: The problem with lawyers and constitutional interpretations

quote:

---

If you're trying to say that he rejects the history of the law, like various revisions that were accepted or rejected, that's fine.

---

That's typically what's understood by "legislative history" and exactly the thing to which I was replying ITT.

quote:

---

I know it's fun to dig on lawyers, but this objectively isn't true. There are plenty of lawyers who have morals and are out to do what is right.

---

Plenty? No. For starters -

In the 2014 election cycle, the legal industry contributed over $120 million to federal political candidates, with 70% going to Democrats.

quote:

---

That's more of a Congress

---

You could’ve stopped there.

quote:

---

not really a court issue.

---

It’s still a court issue. The courts will rule whatever they need to rule to continue the flow of immigration.

quote:

---

That the people who wrote the law had a good idea of what language meant to them

---

What I said specifically rejected this and I was discussing a different interpretive method.

Legislative history =/= originalist textualism. They're 2 different interpretive methods.

My comment was specifically discussing the textualism of WKA, not a completely different interpretive method interpreting the issues of WKA.

quote:

---

I understood you parsing the issue like you have consistently.

---

It's not "me" parsing the issue. I'm discussing 2 distinct interpretive methods. Note: I created neither of them and both have existed before my ancestors may have even set foot in this country

quote:

---

I have lots of points.

---

Okay, ignoring the obvious one...

quote:

---

there’s no analogy between our initial state of existence as a country and today.

---

Except with respect to the context of the post to which I was replying.

quote:

---

Drawing lines between those two dots is something a retard would do.

---

Fine, I'll chalk you up as believing that any attempt to determine the Founders' intent in terms of interpreting the Constitution today is something only a retard would do.

Wong Kim Ark is an interesting read - sort of like Rowe - when they want a result they write around it

As an example - the court goes into great detail about English law and being born and under the protection of the king - yet, in fact, you do not get automatic citizenship in England just by being born there.

This is also interesting

quote:

---

he exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: "1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such Page 169 U. S. 658 person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien."

---

quote:

---

SlowFlowPro

---

Oh for frick sake stop it. Being a text Jewelers also means knowing what the text meant when it was written. Otherwise it's useless. So even if you don't look at the writings of the people at the time and even if you don't consider what they were saying before it was written you still have to fricking consider what the words meant when they were written.

I realize you think you're some kind of smart lawyer so you think you can just argue yourself around in a circle and declare victory but you're still fricking retarded if you're going to try to sell me that Thomas addresses the text of the Constitution the same way liberals do. Quite the opposite. Both Scalia and Thomas know full well with the words fricking meant when they were written. They don't do it liberals do and run around now talking about militias as if the word is being used the same as it is today. They don't run around pretending they don't know what well regulated meant when it was written. Jesus Christ shut the frick up a-hole

You're the kind of fricking a-hole lawyer who would read something written in 1600 that talked about everybody needing to be gay and pleasant and then you would claim they meant they wanted a lot of homosexual men.

I guess so, ****.

quote:

---

All that is needed to (further) obliterate the Constitution is for 5 people to simply believe they know better.

---

That can happen but if the whole of the people are committed they can work to get in corrections. Correcting Roe v. Wade is an example.