Is the swingman retiring?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-12-2018, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: Again, I'm just dicussing to discuss...but I found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

A better way to say it is that originalists say the constitution must be upheld the way it is written.  Not what the words could mean or what they would mean at any other given time OTHER than when they were written.



Which, to me, is silly.

Times changes...society changes.

Certain terms hold their meaning.  Certain thoughts do not.

And certainly the SC (including Scalia) has had more than few decisions that went against decades of consistent decisions.  That sound like interpretation...not originalism.

Well if you went against decades of decisions because you thought they weren't based on the constitution, then that would still be originalism.  We certainly have to interpret the constitution to modern times, but it should still be based on the constitution.  If you just say "Well the constitution was written a long time ago so it's worthless" then you better write a new one (matt) or you have no basis in law for anything.  Including the parts you like.