Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
Originalists, in my reading, generally don't have a problem with the first example while having a big problem with the latter. Though there is always the fudge factor of deciding when a specific case bleeds from one to the other.
|
That fudge factor usually being conveniently the exact flavor of fudge that leads you to justify whatever position you happen to hold.
If for one see very little difference between the first and latter examples. The widespread availability of cheap, accurate, and extremely lethal firearms was as beyond comprehension when the 2nd amendment was written as the idea that women deserved equal treatment under the law was when the 14th was written. So to claim that we have to interpret the 14th entirely within the context in which it was written, but to ignore that context elsewhere is a pretty far stretch imo.
Quote:
|
But just as with strong states rights, most of us tend to be originalists when it gets us what we want and living constitutionalists when that is what gets us what we want
|
Hmm, Does believing in a "living constitution" mean that, to be consistent, one must ALWAYS come down on the side that would mean a change in interpretation? That seems an odd thing to require.