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 cited Scalia who said you must understand the verbiage in it’s [sic] time.
Stop you right there. I cited Scalia who pointed out, contrary to your claims, that it is about the original public meaning, and not the original intent.
We’re done here
We were done a few comments ago, you just decided to splutter on a bit.
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.
Really? What reason were the articles of confederation replaced again? Do you ever get tired of being completely wrong?
Stop you right there. I cited Scalia who pointed out, contrary to your claims, that it is about the original public meaning, and not the original intent.
We were done a few comments ago, you just decided to splutter on a bit.
I cited Scalia, you cited... what you pulled straight out of your ass. It's clear that you are a nitwit. So beat it, boy.
Try in any way refuting what he there said. You know you can't.