Blackstone's basis for common law was that a set of preexisting laws was actually a system of laws this whole time. That "discovery" was neither originalist, nor textualist and it's the foundation for our entire legal philosophy.
-
-
-
Originalism isn't very originalist.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The constitution itself is anti-democratic in that a sheer majority cannot ignore it or change it. It requires super majorities to change - that is, by definition, anti-democratic.
-
Good thing we live in a republic then.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Incorrect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your beef isn't with originalism -- it's with the entire concept of Constitutionalsim.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No it wouldn't. ....and judges shouldn't legislate from the bench. It's the entire reason we have three branches of government.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No, it means legislatures create the laws and judges enforce what was written as it meant when written, even against their preferences. It’s very democratic because it lets the people set law and requires people to change the law, not just judges deciding on new meanings.
-
That’s entirely not her argument
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Except for that pesky Article V that allows amendment; might be why US Constitution is the oldest single text constitution in use today. Can't argue with success.
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.