Today in liberals who have never heard of the amendment process.https://twitter.com/RepSpeier/status/1316429328876556288 …
-
-
The originalist argument in 1865 was, literally, that states could ban slavery, Congress could ban it in the territories, but permanently, federally banning slavery in the states required an amendment - that's why Lincoln, who was an originalist, pushed one through Congress.https://twitter.com/BloodyMathias88/status/1317103063690334208 …
Show this thread -
Yes, the Founders expected amendments, made two of them themselves even after adding the Bill of Rights. Originalism is the idea that changing it is the job of the people, not the judgeshttps://twitter.com/RoyalMadjesty/status/1317103454914007042 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have a hard time looking at this and not thinking that the Left doesn't see the Constitution as the enemy.
-
Same here. Particularly the 2nd amendment, and less so (and more silently so) the 1st due to its protection to free speech and specially freedom of religion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In fairness, and despite being a woman, the founders might have gotten it right about women voting. I shake my head often at my peers. Also, how many women in Congress make me proud?
-
The Founders had nothing to say about women suffrage. The Constitution didn't say anything until the 19th amendment. Previously, they were not banned. It was just a matter of the states.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Smooth argument, originalism is invalid because some amendments exist. But some unamended parts exist and—oh yeah— the amendments themselves could never ever be interpreted by originalist philosophy at the highest court in the land, right?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hi, Dan. No need to straw man here. You known darn well originalist conveniently ignore the intent of those from 1865. It's the reason why they don't apply strict scrutiny to voting restrictions amongst other things. They look to 1787 and earlier, and they pick and choose who
-
Nah, nah, nah. Originalism is a method, liberals and progressives could also use it in their jurisprudence, but chose not to. It's respect for the written law, deference to the legislatures and the people who chooses them. Hell, even Brown v. Board could have been originalist.
End of conversation
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.
It evolves with the times, folks.