Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That is what a strict originalist reading of the Constitution would conclude - the same reading that decided the Constitution doesn't support a right to privacy because the word "privacy" doesn't appear anywhere in the document, and that the Second Amendment can only be interpreted under the rules of 18th century English. Either we believe the Constitution is a living document and that the context of modern society matters in its interpretation, or we don't and that only what was comprehensible to the specific minds of the Founding Fathers in their time, place, idiom and cultural context is legitimate. Since we've clearly decided as a society that originalism wins out, we should stop being hypocrites about it and accept the consequences in totality.



Well an originalist reading has not concluded that.

Are an originalist? Why purport that they believe something that they do not, when you yourself dont believe in the thing you're purporting either?


Obviously that reading isn't sufficiently originalist, merely another example of radical judges making up laws out of thin air.

The text of the Constitution says what it says plainly, and obviously the Founding Fathers meant for it to say exactly what I read.


General relativity was unknown to the founders, so GPS is unconstitutional? I can dig it




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: