Deeply confused by this @CassSunstein column. The argument that originalism is required by the oath of office is not a particularly novel claim. It has bounced around originalist legal scholarship for many years now. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-15/is-the-constitution-a-living-document-supreme-court-can-decide …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
As understood at the time of ratification or ...?
End of 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.