Anyway the US Constitution has gems in it like the 3/5 Compromise but you're not allowed to say it's a bad document w/o being the Antichrist
@FisherBurton I am denying that judicial review was clearly "original intent" but unlike Scalia I don't care abt original intent
-
-
@arthur_affect You said we need to add things on to the Constitution to allow for later interpretations. That is a literalist review... -
@FisherBurton I'm arguing that it's not clear that judicial review is actually supported by Article III - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@arthur_affect ...denying the constitution is a living one allowing later different interpretations as both Jefferson and Marshall framed itThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@arthur_affect But just like Scalia you are saying there is nothing in the Constitution allowing for anything but interpretation by...Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@arthur_affect ...intent. -
@FisherBurton you understand my whole point is that on a moral level I don't respect the document much at all - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.