A Thought Exercise on Originalism vs a More Activist Approach

[NotreDame]

My friend, you're so far "off the farm" and exhibiting desperation to demonstrate moral superiority, while flogging a failed philosophy, it's not fun anymore. I was enjoying substantive discussion, to the extent it was attempted, but these justifications and assertions are getting downright pathetic. The ad hominem attacks and extensive distractions merely highlight the vacuity of your arguments.

Nothing you have presented in dozens of posts has supported your insubstantial and unsubstantiated claims. Nothing. "Originalism" is a failed and fraudulent "judicial philosophy" practiced by charlatans. That has been demonstrated over and over, yet you consistently excuse those extant abuses as "exceptions" and cling to a fervent belief in the righteousness of "the cause" in spite of the exceptions inerrantly swallowing the rule.

My friend, you're so far "off the farm"

Ah, the fabled but pathetic rhetorical ploys of telling someone else they are “so far off the farm.” This counts neither as sound reasoning, just your rhetorical blovIating.

and exhibiting desperation to demonstrate moral superiority,

Quote impossible since my philosophy doesn’t believe in “moral superiority.” Unbeknownst to you, I’ve contested the use of people invoking a moral or ethical principle to judge or evaluate some action, people. The above is just more of you speaking out of your rear end.

it's not fun anymore

Anymore? Truth be told, there wasn’t any fun at all and there never is when discussing anything with you. Your modus operandi is to speak matter of fact in a myriad of fields and subject matter that reflect a lack of knowledge in the area. Then when called on it you mock. That irrational approach of yours is played out and has never been fun.

Nothing you have presented in dozens of posts has supported your insubstantial and unsubstantiated claims.

To the contrary, I have, and you have neither read or understood what I’ve said because the above is factually false.

What is factually true is you’ve attempted to attack originalism with this bizarre logic of deriding the method and philosophy by peoples’ misuse of it. That doesn’t make any sense in any dimension.

Then you played Pythia in the Greek temple by mind reading the personal motives and hidden thoughts of those who follow originalism and those who played a role developing the philosophy.

That is flawed reasoning.

Originalism" is a failed and fraudulent "judicial philosophy" practiced by charlatans. That has been demonstrated over and over,

Not by you…not with your flawed logic of deriding originalism because people misuse it. That is as mind numbingly irrational as blaming Marxism for leaders misuse of it.

And your mind reading of people isn’t evidence to support your comment.

Your comment about originalism is as vacuous today as it was yesterday and given your inability to make a lucid, cogent argument for your claim, likely a vacuous statement in perpetuity.

I give up. You're immune to reason. And, no, you haven't "won" any of the argument. I'm just not willing to waste any more time responding to your obstinate churlishness.

Won the argument? You know so little. I wasn’t thinking about “winning.” I am focused on the strength of arguments, the logic and evidence. Another fine example of you assuming facts that do not exist.

And I’m glad you are exiting stage right. It’s time to let the rational adults have the floor, people who do not pretend to be Gypsies, read the mind of people, and pawn it off as fact. It is time for people who aren’t going to resort to the illogical argument of blaming concepts for peoples’ misuse of the concept.

Put me in your ignore list. I’d rather not read another of your posts that’s substantively nothing but your piss and vinegar pawned off as fact with the hope someone is uninformed and will find your vacuous rhetoric persuasive.

 

[prometeus]

Oh, the word “excuse me” followed by a question mark has you confused as to its meaning? Shocker.

This dialogue could have been so productive if you had made an informed comment. But you jumped two feet in with the use of the word “ignorant” and into a subject matter where you lacked depth to make an informed opinion.

Says the person who believes that the same word in a document has various meaning that suit his ignorant beliefs.

 

[NotreDame]

Says the person who believes that the same word in a document has various meaning that suit his ignorant beliefs.

Oh? And of course you’ve shown, by evidence and sound reasoning, that to be incorrect? No, you haven’t.

The problem is making such an inflammatory claim and then tucking tail and run from having to make any factual, evidentiary, or sound argument to support your belief. I welcome a showing my belief is ignorant, as this would prompt me to change my views. But you haven’t come remotely close to doing so. Rather, your replies have been bellicose, vituperative, and vacuous.

There’s no shortage of people who mouth of claims that they cannot support with evidence, facts, or sound reasoning, like you have done with your argument. It’s a dubious group and the modern day contemporaries are some people identifying as followers of Q’Anon, flat earth believers, geocentric believers, people who believe in Santa, unicorns, and the gods are having sex when it thunders. Your argument rightly belongs in such a group at the moment.

Context breathed meaning into the phrase you cited to, a context you ignored to the detriment of your own argument.

 

[prometeus]

Oh? And of course you’ve shown, by evidence and sound reasoning, that to be incorrect?

Only basic language skills and integrity is needed to understand that the same word in multiple locations in the same document does not have various meanings.
Your denials and other lacking will not change that fact.

 

[NotreDame]

Only basic language skills and integrity is needed to understand that the same word in multiple locations in the same document does not have various meanings.
Your denials and other lacking will not change that fact.

Is it a fact? You’ve provided no evidence for your so called fact. Furthermore, what your comment ignores is that the same word in the same document can and does at times does have a different meaning.

I’ll do what is impossible for you to do, provide facts.

The Constitution did not establish criteria of who may vote for the House of Reps or the Senate. This wasn’t for a lack of trying, as the delegation to the Constitutional Convention proposed a property requirement to vote, that was rejected. The delegates then proposed national, uniform qualifications, which was also rejected for fear such doing so would result in the State resoundingly reject the Constitution. So, the deletes ultimately agreed to defer to the states to establish who may vote for the House.

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”

The Constitution didn’t define “people” here, thereby permitting the broad, common meaning of “people.” But the Constitution did explicitly attach the scope of which “people” may vote for the House to “the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”

Consequently, the scope of the “people” who vote for the House could change, as who of the “people” may vote for the House was contingent upon who may vote for the “most numerous branch of the state legislature.” Hence, any State altering who qualifies to vote for the “most numerous branch of the state legislature” has also altered who may vote for the House of Representatives.

Now, the BOR’s use of the phrase “people” and “person” lacks any identical or similar language of possibly contracting or expanding the scope of “people” in relation to rights as the Constitution does for the phrase of “people” electing the House.

But tell me more about your “language skills” and “integrity.” Neither helped you at all in light of those facts. Facts matter. I’ll pass on your proposed Trumpian idea of “alternative facts” and “alternative” language skills.

 

[Rich2018]

Only basic language skills and integrity is needed to understand that the same word in multiple locations in the same document does not have various meanings.
Your denials and other lacking will not change that fact.

You need more than that. Styles of writing change over the years as do spelling and grammar rules.

Read a 230 year old document armed only with basic modern reading comprehension, is far too inadequate to get the original meaning.

 

[prometeus]

You need more than that. Styles of writing change over the years as do spelling and grammar rules.

Read a 230 year old document armed only with basic modern reading comprehension, is far too inadequate to get the original meaning.

You missed my point. What I was saying is that the same word in the same document, without any special definitions, will have the same meaning, regardless when it was written. The "entire" document may be up to interpretation over time, but the meaning of the word will remain consistent in the interpretation.

 

[Rich2018]

You missed my point. What I was saying is that the same word in the same document, without any special definitions, will have the same meaning, regardless when it was written. The "entire" document may be up to interpretation over time, but the meaning of the word will remain consistent in the interpretation.

No it won't necessarily - the meaning of words change over time, and 230 year is quite a bit of time.
A good example is Shakespeare's line from the balcony scene, from "Romeo & Juliet"; Juliet says to Romeo "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?"
Most people think she was just asking where Romeo was, but he's right there below her. She is really asking "why" is he Romeo; specifically why is he a member of a rival family.

Grammar rules change too. The 2A is the most obvious example. The framers wrote that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms was in order to maintain a militia. Pro-gunners try to use grammatical rules to say that's not what it means.

 

[prometeus]

No it won't necessarily - the meaning of words change over time, and 230 year is quite a bit of time.

Are you being obtuse or are still missing the point?
230 years ago when someone used a word multiple times in one document, that word did not have multiple meaning then
and if now the same word can or does have a different meaning, when use in the same document it will have the same different meaning. To put it another way, the meaning of a word used multiple times in a document remains the same.

 

[Rich2018]

Are you being obtuse or are still missing the point?
230 years ago when someone used a word multiple times in one document, that word did not have multiple meaning then
and if now the same word can or does have a different meaning, when use in the same document it will have the same different meaning. To put it another way, the meaning of a word used multiple times in a document remains the same.

It's you who're being obtuse, a word used multiple times in one document doesn't have multiple meanings - at that time

But the meaning of the word can change over a 230 year period

What are you not getting ?

 

[prometeus]

It's you who're being obtuse, a word used multiple times in one document doesn't have multiple meanings - at that time

But the meaning of the word can change over a 230 year period

What are you not getting ?

I am not getting why you make stupid posts only to restate in the end what I was stating all along.

 

[Rich2018]

I am not getting why you make stupid posts only to restate in the end what I was stating all along.

Psychological projection.

 

[prometeus]

Psychological projection.

No, just simple fact. Anyone reading the thread can see it.

 

[Rich2018]

No, just simple fact. Anyone reading the thread can see it.

I've no interest in getting into a pantomime "oh no it isn't, oh yes it is" with you.

I am not getting why you make stupid posts only to restate in the end what I was stating all along.

Suffice to say, you're just spouting psychological projection in lieu of constructive argument. You have nothing to contribute to this or any other debate, except your petty invective.

 

[prometeus]

I've no interest in getting into a pantomime "oh no it isn't, oh yes it is" with you.

It is nothing of the sort. You butted into the discussion without either properly reading it or lacking the capacity to understand it.

Suffice to say, you're just spouting psychological projection

No, I am simply stating the facts as they are plain and clear and you clearly lack the integrity and or the capacity to recognize them.

in lieu of constructive argument.

There is nothing to argue. From the very beginning I stated that in a document the meaning of a word used multiple times will have the same meaning consistently.
You came along with the irrelevant drivel that over time meanings of words change, something that was not an issue or in dispute.

You have nothing to contribute to this or any other debate, except your petty invective.

Stating the simple fact that you are wrong and stupid\ly are doubling down it it is not an invective just a fact and a reflection of your lack of integrity.

 

[Rich2018]

It is nothing of the sort....

Whatever.

...I am simply stating the facts as they are plain and clear

To you.

...and you clearly lack the integrity and or the capacity to recognize them.

Yada, yada, y a w n
Psychological projection.

...there is nothing to argue. From the very beginning I stated that in a document the meaning of a word used multiple times will have the same meaning consistently.

But the point was the meaning of words change over time, not over paper
Reading comprehension failure.

You came along with the irrelevant drivel that over time meanings of words change, something that was not an issue or in dispute.

Stating the simple fact that you are wrong and stupid\ly are doubling down it it is not an invective just a fact and a reflection of your lack of integrity.

Yada, yada, y a w n
Yet more worthless psychological projection

Come back to the thread when/if you can offer more than random slander


“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” - quote attributed to Socrates.

 

[prometeus]

But the point was the meaning of words change over time, not over paper

No it was not. Learn to ****ing read.

You are only proving your lack of integrity and basic language skill.

 

[Rich2018]

No it was not. Learn to ****ing read.

Yes it was...I think you need to learn how to read

LOL.

You are only proving your lack of integrity and basic language skill.

Please explain your perception of what the word "integrity" means, as it seems you're using your own personal language
And for you second tasks, explain how you perceive it applying in this context

And you talk about "basic" language skill....

Pot...kettle....black


LMAO at prometeus' attempt to take a superior position.

 

[prometeus]

Yes it was...I think you need to learn how to read

LOL.



Please explain your perception of what the word "integrity" means, as it seems you're using your own personal language
And for you second tasks, explain how you perceive it applying in this context

And you talk about "basic" language skill....

Pot...kettle....black


LMAO at prometeus' attempt to take a superior position.

Not superior just factual, whereas you just lie.

 

[Rich2018]

Not superior just factual, whereas you just lie.

Psychological projection


Still LMAO at prometeus' attempts to take a superior position...while constructing a faux facade of "integrity" to hide behind.