Before I get to what I want to share with you we need to establish the term originalism. At a glance, it basically means interpreting the US Constitution ratified in 1789 as written. But let's go a tad deeper:
Originalism is the idea that we should interpret the Constitution with its original meaning. But what, exactly, is the Constitution’s “original meaning”?
Some originalists argue it’s the meaning as understood by those who ratified the Constitution in the various state conventions, or the public that elected those ratifiers. Others say it’s the understanding of a reasonable, well-educated reader. Still other scholars claim the Constitution is written in legal language and should be interpreted with its original “legal” meaning. With this approach, for example, the term “ex post facto laws” likely refers only to retroactive criminal laws, and not to all retroactive laws.
Although critics of originalism make much of these intraoriginalist squabbles, the reality is all of the above approaches usually lead to the same answer.
And then we go to a tweet from a man who defeated a Kennedy for a US Senate seat from their home state of Massachusetts who evidently doesn't like originalism:
Hmmm Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass), I'm just not sure where to begin to question your tweet. How does he interpret the constitution. Does he think the constitution is racist?Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) October 26, 2020
h/t Newsalert
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are now moderated because one random commenter chose to get comment happy. What doesn't get published is up to my discretion. Of course moderating policy is subject to change. Thanks!