As a fan of Michael Anton’s writing and an opponent of birthright citizenship, I’m truly bummed to find that his interpretation of the 14th amendment is even more of a Hail Mary than it appeared.
I should do this! My main exposure to the philosophy of originalism is reading Scalia opinions and some Strauss stuff—no real linguistics background. But is it a linguistics problem per se? Not about how things are described, but the existence of previously indescribable things.
-
-
There are two issues: (1) what is the communicative content (linguistic meaning in context) of the text & (2) what legal effect do we give to the text. The first issue is very much a matter of the philosophy of language and theoretical linguistics. Secon issue is normative.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.