You really have to be dense? How can you claim to be an originalist if you don’t even know the articles of confederation or the federalist papers? Hey guys let’s do algebra, we just can’t use numbers or variables. You can’t claim to be an originalist if you don’t even know the beliefs of the founding fathers. You can’t know the intent of the founding fathers without understanding why the articles of confederation were drafted and why the federalist papers were written. You believe sitting and staring at a constitutions words gives you insight to its intent?
No it doesn’t, originalism is applying the constitution based on original intent. That’s all. You can’t be an originalist without fully understanding the articles of confederation or the federalist papers that were both instrumental in why the bill of rights was written the way it was, why we have a convoluted bicameral system, how we have actually abandoned the constitution as the country grew in size. Of course if you took the time to pay attention to any of that, you would know the founding fathers never intended for the United States federal government to have any form of supremacy over the states, but instead shared rights that prevent the government from taking action upon the states/public.
Wait, you think 'originalism' means interpreting the document that was replaced by the Constitution?
That's almost as idiotic as the leftists who think that originalism means that you ignore amendments to the Constitutiion.
You really have to be dense? How can you claim to be an originalist if you don’t even know the articles of confederation or the federalist papers? Hey guys let’s do algebra, we just can’t use numbers or variables. You can’t claim to be an originalist if you don’t even know the beliefs of the founding fathers. You can’t know the intent of the founding fathers without understanding why the articles of confederation were drafted and why the federalist papers were written. You believe sitting and staring at a constitutions words gives you insight to its intent?
What does 'knowing' the documents have to do with basing interpretations of another document based on the one that it abrogated?
That is not what originalism is, dummy. Originalism refers to the original public meaning of the documents, not the thoughts in their heads.
No it doesn’t, originalism is applying the constitution based on original intent. That’s all. You can’t be an originalist without fully understanding the articles of confederation or the federalist papers that were both instrumental in why the bill of rights was written the way it was, why we have a convoluted bicameral system, how we have actually abandoned the constitution as the country grew in size. Of course if you took the time to pay attention to any of that, you would know the founding fathers never intended for the United States federal government to have any form of supremacy over the states, but instead shared rights that prevent the government from taking action upon the states/public.
You really have no clue what you are talking about. Here is what Scalia wrote about originalism:
But even if your whacked out beliefs were correct, you still would be wrong. The AoC were replaced for a reason.