a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So anyone who participated would be disqualified.

Why?

That illustrates the fundamental problem with originalism.

further illustration is needed. What follows is too sketchy, abstract, vague, and subjective

Either the theory produces unacceptable results that subvert the constitutional principles it purports to uphold, or history loses relevance because abstract principles are applied to contemporary circumstances unknown at the time the relevant provisions were ratified. Either way, originalism doesn’t work.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How would using the words "insurrection" and "rebellion" as they were defined at the time the amendment was written produce unacceptable results? If the results are unacceptable, then the words shouldn't be used in charging the defendant since they would not fit the constitutional language necessary to make the charge. If you want to make a case within the bounds of constitutional law, then you have to use the language of the Constitution. Otherwise, you will subvert the Constitution, and create your own version of law, thereby rewriting the Constitution without proper amendment.

To put it simply, if the words used to make your charge don't comport with the definition of those words in the Constitution, then your charge is unconstitutional.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How would using the words "insurrection" and "rebellion" as they were defined at the time the amendment was written produce unacceptable results? If the results are unacceptable, then the words shouldn't be used in charging the defendant since they would not fit the constitutional language necessary to make the charge. If you want to make a case within the bounds of constitutional law, then you have to use the language of the Constitution. Otherwise, you will subvert the Constitution, and create your own version of law, thereby rewriting the Constitution without proper amendment.

To put it simply, if the words used to make your charge don't comport with the definition of those words in the Constitution, then your charge is unconstitutional.

I don’t find it unacceptable and think it fits the definition of insurrection at that time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don’t find it unacceptable and think it fits the definition of insurrection at that time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So then, originalism works?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So then, originalism works?

They should be charged with insurrection and not be eligible to hold office in this country.

Originalism only works when judges like the result otherwise they do what Alito did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They should be charged with insurrection and not be eligible to hold office in this country.

Originalism only works when judges like the result otherwise they do what Alito did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said originalism doesn't work. Now you say it works for you if you like the result. Sounds like you're a stable genius. And a genius like you should be able to explain how, as you said "it fits the definition of insurrection at that time." What was the definition at that time"?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You said originalism doesn't work. Now you say it works for you if you like the result. Sounds like you're a stable genius. And a genius like you should be able to explain how, as you said "it fits the definition of insurrection at that time." What was the definition at that time"?

I’m content to leave it at that….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I’m content to leave it at that….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because that's all you have the ability to do. Ignorance is bliss.