Is the swingman retiring?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-12-2018, 11:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: That doesn't sound logical.

Why would someone be an "originalist" and then agree with changes?  That doesn't sound like something people who claim to like the "originalists" would like.

They seem to want the Constitution applied as "originally" written...not as changes have been made.

Nor do they like new "interpretations" even though all we have is interpretations.  So if a new interpretation is that blacks/slaves no longer count as 3/5 that would not be original.  Nor would adding prohibition.  Then getting rid of prohibition.

Original is original: The way the founding fathers "meant" it to be.

And they meant it to be amended.  So no originalist should argue with any amendment. They can think the amendment was wrong to pass. I guess they could argue on what an amendment means in some cases if there is some ambiguity, but no originalist is arguing that the VP should be the guy who received the second most votes.  Or that the VP is next in line should the president die.  Or that senators are elected by the state legislatures.  (I think that's how it was.)