Thanks to the National Constitution Center for arranging this panel discussion. I am in no way a constitutional scholar, yet I still enjoyed this panel discussion. I especially appreciated that speakers didn't try to talk over one another, even when they disagreed.
Erwin Chemerinsky, the most cited constitutional scholar, wrote a book that is on point here: "Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous: Fallacy of Originalism." Our profession does a great disservice to the public advancing these labels because it misleads the public into thinking that there is an objectivity to a justice opinion if they use a particular "method of interpretation." A more objective reason of how a justice arrived at his/her decision can be found in their political leanings, life experiences, religion, etc. Maybe we should ask a psychologist to provide a label rather than a justice's aspirations of what they think (originalism or textualism) they did to arrive at their decision because none of these methods of interpretation are capable of reliable reproducibility except by the author in his mind to arrive at his desired result.
J. Joel Alicea's "ultimate justification for originalism" strikes me as incoherent. He said that "If judges do not adhere to the meaning of a constitutional provision as it was understood at the time that it was ratified, they undermine the authority of the people to govern themselves." This is nonsense. What we have is a dictatorship of the dead. We have judges who reject laws enacted by the people through their legislature on the grounds that people long dead would have disapproved. We are not permitted to govern ourselves. These judges, acting as agents of long-dead dictators, give the dead a veto power over legislation. And, unlike a traditional dictatorship, we can't even approach our dictators with reasoned arguments to try to persuade them to change their minds. And if one should say, "But, there's an amendment process . . ." Well, history shows that before an amendment can be passed that introduces any real or substantive changes, we must first go through four years of violent conflict. Then, the victors can push through a few amendments that introduce real change. Other than that, amendments can only make structural changes.
Thanks to the National Constitution Center for arranging this panel discussion. I am in no way a constitutional scholar, yet I still enjoyed this panel discussion. I especially appreciated that speakers didn't try to talk over one another, even when they disagreed.
“I don’t think democracy is the guiding principle of our Constitution, individual liberty is.”
I wish more people understood this concept. Well said!
Agreed
Erwin Chemerinsky, the most cited constitutional scholar, wrote a book that is on point here: "Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous: Fallacy of Originalism." Our profession does a great disservice to the public advancing these labels because it misleads the public into thinking that there is an objectivity to a justice opinion if they use a particular "method of interpretation." A more objective reason of how a justice arrived at his/her decision can be found in their political leanings, life experiences, religion, etc. Maybe we should ask a psychologist to provide a label rather than a justice's aspirations of what they think (originalism or textualism) they did to arrive at their decision because none of these methods of interpretation are capable of reliable reproducibility except by the author in his mind to arrive at his desired result.
What about slavery practices in the constitution?
When you overhear some Federalist Society drones talking it's like listening in on some cannibals arguing about how to cook their latest victim.
J. Joel Alicea's "ultimate justification for originalism" strikes me as incoherent. He said that "If judges do not adhere to the meaning of a constitutional provision as it was understood at the time that it was ratified, they undermine the authority of the people to govern themselves."
This is nonsense.
What we have is a dictatorship of the dead. We have judges who reject laws enacted by the people through their legislature on the grounds that people long dead would have disapproved. We are not permitted to govern ourselves. These judges, acting as agents of long-dead dictators, give the dead a veto power over legislation.
And, unlike a traditional dictatorship, we can't even approach our dictators with reasoned arguments to try to persuade them to change their minds.
And if one should say, "But, there's an amendment process . . ." Well, history shows that before an amendment can be passed that introduces any real or substantive changes, we must first go through four years of violent conflict. Then, the victors can push through a few amendments that introduce real change. Other than that, amendments can only make structural changes.
The Modern History of Plagiarism.