Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
The National Rifle Association has sued Florida after it passed a gun control
will they sue RI if their Red flag bill passes
I am guessing they will argue waiting 3days and being 21 s an infringement of your right to own gun..
on this they will go with an originalist view of the wording of the 2a
then change to 21st century reading of 2a in the argument on for bump stocks
|
Originalist view is 21st century as well as any past century back to the writing of the Constitution or to any future century. It is not time dependent.
I don't know what you mean by "21st century reading". If you mean a "Progressive" reading, which has been around for a century or so, it is also not time dependent as a methodology, although it does depend on "time" for "interpretation."
An originalist would determine if the state has the constitutional power to pass the law. If the law conflicted with its citizens rights. And would write a decision based on the meaning of the words in the Constitution--a decision based on the law.
A Progressive would decide on the basis of a personal view of some higher purpose, or some socially just, or socially equitable outcome, regardless of whether the state had a written constitutional authority to pass the law or not. The Progressive then, per custom, would write a circuitous but legalistic sounding summation to make the decision appear to be in accordance with the Constitution.
You can imagine, I hope, what a century of Progressive jurisprudence has done to the constitutional order. Actually, Progressivism, at its core (if it has one), is not agreeable to the basic concept of law or principle. Law and principle are, by their nature, too confining and inelastic. Too permanent. For a Progressive, "law" is temporary regulation. It is derived from the constantly fluctuating views of the day as perceived by the majority of current Progressive social and intellectual theorists. Rather than being a 21st century view (a century is too long, too unevolved), Progressivism is the view of the moment. Social ideas can change rapidly if not grounded by some fixed principles of human nature. The notion of identities can change overnight. Genders can proliferate from two to dozens. Race can be a matter of opinion. Equality becomes actual outcome rather an interface with the law.
Opinion, rather than law or principle, guides the Progressive view. Of course, the opinion must be formed by the experts--the academics in the liberal arts, sociology, law, and journalism departments of our predominantly Progressive colleges and universities.
Progressives like to attach their view of government to some notion of evolution. But government evolution is a contradiction. Evolution is random. Government is prescribed. There is no judicial branch of evolution which defines gender or natural order, nor a legislative branch of evolution which determines the next random "accident." If there were an executive overseeing evolution, it would be a god, not an accidental, random force.
Claiming evolution as its driving force is a self-deceptive trick to justify a government's power to rule without opposition, without constraint. It is a scientifically sounding persuasion to justify the transformation of our constitutional order into a modernized version of old-fashioned authoritarianism.