"Injured soldiers shall continue to receive their salaries for life" and if after consulting the dictionaries sufficiently enough one does not find one of the meanings listed there for the word "injury" limiting it to only big injuries, then that statement would be applicable on an injury even as small as a paper cut, despite how that sounds unreasonable.
Nevertheless, I can see opposing this as an interpretation way for the constitution. But the position that appears completely contradictory to me is calling something as conflicting with that as Originalism, following the text. It makes me speechless seeing claims of that kind let go without the scrutiny they deserve.
No comments:
Post a Comment