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.
You cited Scalia who said you must understand the verbiage in it’s time. How exactly do we verify this again? What other documents are the constitution put against again for verification of intent? It’s hilarious, your argument is anti originalist and you don’t even realize it because you haven’t bothered to read anything about federalism or originalist interpretation. We’re done here, actually read the documents you troglodyte, come back when you’re done with your book report for grading.
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.
You’re proving your knowledge about Scalia is limited to that quote. Try proving you can read more than a paragraph princess.
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.
You cited Scalia who said you must understand the verbiage in it’s time. How exactly do we verify this again? What other documents are the constitution put against again for verification of intent? It’s hilarious, your argument is anti originalist and you don’t even realize it because you haven’t bothered to read anything about federalism or originalist interpretation. We’re done here, actually read the documents you troglodyte, come back when you’re done with your book report for grading.
Try in any way refuting what he there said. You know you can't.