Said Constitution is a living document. It was intended to be such in the provision for amendments. Those amendments total twenty-seven to date, with one more hanging out there waiting for a last, final state vote. You wouldn’t want to be stuck with an overhead cam, V8 design from 1787 ‘cause – gosh – the internal combustion engine didn’t exist then.
Neither the “Rabbit” nor Scalia are or ever were “originalists” – neither ever cared to explain the TRUE meaning of the Second Amendment – especially the first four words of said amendment (A well regulated Militia)!
You see, the framers, back in 1789,had no intention of allowing the newly formed nation to EVER have a “standing” army! Each individual state was supposed to have it’s own "well regulated militia (National Guard) that could be called upon if needed.
So, basically, we either need to get rid of the military OR the Second Amendment, because they are mutually exclusive, according to “Originalist” doctrine.
Jurists embrace “originalism” because they can’t think for themselves. That was Scalia’s problem; he never had an original thought in his entire miserable life.
Okay, Barrett, listen up then: The original intent behind the Constitution was that it be a living document which would evolve and grow along with American society!
It was never intended to foster holistic societal regression.
Maybe Barrett should form her own political party, the Amish Party for everyone who wants to continue to live in the past.
Hats off to the creator. Thank you, Sir. Astute. ‘Originalist’ and ‘contextualist’ would ignore all the legislation in the past 233 years. We all see what is at stake here and to deny it would make one a liar. I would hope that when my President and my Legislators are in the position to make that choice that they would follow the same procedures. Just don’t try to lie about it, O. K.?
LookingGlass Premium Member over 3 years ago
“But before I do, let me ask my Lord/Master/Husband what HIS “ruling” would be, on my opinion!"
Màiri over 3 years ago
I wonder why nobody has asked her about that.
pc368dude over 3 years ago
Said Constitution is a living document. It was intended to be such in the provision for amendments. Those amendments total twenty-seven to date, with one more hanging out there waiting for a last, final state vote. You wouldn’t want to be stuck with an overhead cam, V8 design from 1787 ‘cause – gosh – the internal combustion engine didn’t exist then.
kv450 over 3 years ago
if only …
ncorgbl over 3 years ago
Barrett lied under while oath Tuesday.
wellis1947 Premium Member over 3 years ago
Neither the “Rabbit” nor Scalia are or ever were “originalists” – neither ever cared to explain the TRUE meaning of the Second Amendment – especially the first four words of said amendment (A well regulated Militia)!
You see, the framers, back in 1789,had no intention of allowing the newly formed nation to EVER have a “standing” army! Each individual state was supposed to have it’s own "well regulated militia (National Guard) that could be called upon if needed.
So, basically, we either need to get rid of the military OR the Second Amendment, because they are mutually exclusive, according to “Originalist” doctrine.
Jody H. Premium Member over 3 years ago
Well said (and drawn), Mr. Sheneman!
Andrew Sleeth over 3 years ago
Jurists embrace “originalism” because they can’t think for themselves. That was Scalia’s problem; he never had an original thought in his entire miserable life.
artmer over 3 years ago
Oh, were it to be…
Rabies65 over 3 years ago
More importantly, what does the 1787 text say about making photo ID a voting requirement?
Daeder over 3 years ago
Okay, Barrett, listen up then: The original intent behind the Constitution was that it be a living document which would evolve and grow along with American society!
It was never intended to foster holistic societal regression.
Maybe Barrett should form her own political party, the Amish Party for everyone who wants to continue to live in the past.
cageywayne over 3 years ago
Hats off to the creator. Thank you, Sir. Astute. ‘Originalist’ and ‘contextualist’ would ignore all the legislation in the past 233 years. We all see what is at stake here and to deny it would make one a liar. I would hope that when my President and my Legislators are in the position to make that choice that they would follow the same procedures. Just don’t try to lie about it, O. K.?