I think it is more complicated: (1) most originalists do not believe that originalism is the only possible method of interpretation and constructions, (2) some living constitutionalists do believe this, Dworkin, Bobbitt. Also, much depends on how "interpretation" is defined.
I don't think that's true, and so argue in my book. Originalists have this asymmetrical viewhttps://twitter.com/michaelmorley11/status/998723104531771392 …
-
-
-
Tweet unavailable
-
(1) Scalia and others sometimes have said that only originalism is the only method that genuinely interprets. In my opinion, this statement is approximates the truth if applied to the sense of "interpretation" specified by the interpretation/construction distinction.
-
(2) This is because any genuine interpretation must acknowledge that communicative content is fixed at the time of framing and ratification. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2559701 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That is because there are no rules to Living Constitutionalism outside of "feelz".
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I will have to check that out. But presumably they think that whatever they're doing - even if it's eclecticism or pragmatism - is better than the alternatives?
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.