@FisherBurton I am denying that judicial review was clearly "original intent" but unlike Scalia I don't care abt original intent
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
@arthur_affect You said we need to add things on to the Constitution to allow for later interpretations. That is a literalist review...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FisherBurton
@FisherBurton I'm arguing that it's not clear that judicial review is actually supported by Article III2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
@FisherBurton many ppl at the time agreed w that view , including Thomas Jefferson2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
@arthur_affect And Jefferson absolutely believed in a living Constitution...as did Marshall and Marbury V Madison.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FisherBurton
@FisherBurton Jefferson specifically argued judicial review did not exist as such and Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @FisherBurton
@FisherBurton you're using originalism to attack originalism, which is contradictory4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
@FisherBurton I'm arguing I don't give a flying fuck what the original intent was & I think the original intent was in fact bad1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
@FisherBurton if the Constitution functions as a "living" document that itself is something we made up & we shouldn't be ashamed of that1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@FisherBurton just like you shouldn't need to argue the Bible is "really" feminist (it isn't) to be a feminist Christian
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.