Can't wait to finish with the Second Amendment to attack my first ideological enemy in the field of interpreting the Constitution: ORIGINALISM!
But seriously isn't being an Originalist judge is like being a chemist in a lab who do not believe in the molecule theory?
If the language is disabled like this, how can a constitution be the highest official law of the land? What other way the makers of such document have to convey to us their instructions? If that does not matter to Originalists then how limited could be their view to the constitution being in that position?
I think that if it were not for the identity issue here it would have been unthinkable that a judge takes such a view. And similar to the issue with the Second Amendment, I also include in my criticism here what could be many if not most of those on the opposing side, for what seems to be incorrect or insufficient opposition to this view because I think that internally they are affected by the same psychological factor.
No comments:
Post a Comment