Debate : 17793


Off-Topic / Debate / 17793	17792 \| 17794

Subject:	Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:36:57 GMT
Viewed:	1618 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: > > I guess I misunderstood. But unfortunately, I still do. > > That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too. Let me try... I don't know about Chris, but I personally misunderstood this: > You weren't paying attention to earlier messages. The law *as written*. If > you want to move onto later claims, that's another story I'm taking it to mean that you think we have to use the constitution's exact words only and not any contemporaneous writings by the same authors which expand and explain what the clauses mean. Is that correct? If that's what you mean I'm not sure it's a tenable position. Even if we ignore the supporting and explanatory writings specifically, we still have to have some way of determining context. For example, in Dave K.s misguided nonrebuttal of Richard's excellent set of cites, he uses dictionary definitions of words to claim the 2nd says something different. But he's using MODERN definitions of words like regulated and militia. We know, from other writings of the time (not necessarily the supporting ones) that the modern meanings are not the same as the meanings then. We have to use the meanings of the time to interpret (and court opinions, when they are not being revisionist, do just this research into contemporary meanings of words) the writings. If we cannot use anything else we might as well give up. Just define "war is peace" and "slavery is freedom" and be done with it! But I don't think anyone actually wants to do that. Of course I could have misunderstood what you said so if I did, can you clarify? BTW, you're wasting your breath arguing with Scott. Everyone already knows the truth of the points you're making about his style and has for years. Just ignore him.

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) No - it would seem close and I understand you thinking that, but not really. I merely wish to establish one thing before moving on to the next. If Joe Blow walking down the street suddenly spotted the 2nd Amendment, what would be his (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
(...) That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search