I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Are you arguing in favor of interpreting text according to the meaning of words at the time the text was written or are you arguing against it?
But do you understand how the text of the 14th amendment has been interpreted to effectively rewrite the Bill of Rights to make it more than just a set of restrictions on the power of the federal government?
I understand how it has been applied to the States thus l can have students look at state laws too through the lens of the Bill of Rights. Let me look in my book of Big Words for Stupid People.
in-cor-por-a-tion
Is that how you Big Brains™ say it?
In other words, don’t talk down to me. I’m not retarded.
Do YOU understand that?
Where did that come from?
The condescending way he said “But do you understand …” like I’m a child. Remember the thread I made on people with disabilities? How he misstated what I said so he could repeatedly call me an asshole and beat me up with how ignorant I am about disabilities (despite my master’s in special education).
I know others might not see “You’re a stupid idiot.” in what he wrote but just look how he wrote it, like I’m a little ignorant child that needs to be learned by the great ASL_v2.0. It’s not like he hasn’t done that to me before.
I don’t know what the past history is but I’m not seeing it.
I am arguing that interpreting a historic document “as written” necessarily implies interpreting the text according to the meaning of the words at the time the text was written.
The OP asks what doctrine opposes interpreting the U.S. Constitution “as written”: textualism or originalism? My answer is that both textualists and originalists (and also organists/living constitution adherents) purport to interpret the Constitution “as written”. Everybody does.
Consider the word “he”. Today, “he” is exclusively male. In the past, it was also the neuter pronoun when gender was unknown or unspecified. The U.S. Constitution refers to the President with the pronoun “he”. A modern reader may infer from reading the text as is that a President must be male. But if this inference is made solely based on modern assumptions of the pronoun “he”, it is not interpreting the text as written. My point is that all lines of jurisprudence interpret the constitution as written. living constitution, textualism, original intent, even original meaning.
~Max
Interesting question and discussion. I’m wondering how “cruel and unusual punishment” would be understood (and applied) by the respective judicial philosophies. A plain reading certainly seems to demand a subjective interpretation.
Well, the “unusual” bit allows for an objective reading based on what punishments were widely used in 1791 - note that it’s “cruel” and “unusual” in cumulation. This is the key originalist counter-argument against arguments that the death penalty should be held unconstitutional on the basis of the Eighth Amendment: It was in widespread use at the time of the amendment and hence would not have been considered unusual by those who wrote it.
How would the respective justices react to a state that reinstated stocks, pillories and a whipping post, all established punishments in colonial America?
ISTM, an originalist would have to deem it legal. A strict textualist has more wiggle room—more than his inclinations would allow him to be comfortable with, I’d guess. I don’t know how one derives a plain meaning from text that has no specific plain meaning on its face.
They would leave it to democratic decision-making by means of votes and elections. If the societal consensus is against such forms of punishment (the usual “living document” argument in favour of a non-originalist interpretation), then there woudl never be majorities to reinstate them.
But an originalist would surely bless the practice, were it to be voted in, correct? If such a policy didn’t shock the collective conscience of colonial America, too bad for anyone who takes exception today.
ETA: Also, ISTM, if such deference to the legislatures resolves the matter, then the constitutional restriction is toothless.
An originalist would conclude that the practice would not violate the Constitution if voted in, but that does not mean it will, in fact, be voted in. It does not even mean originalists themselves would vote in favour of the practice. Originalism is a method of statutory, in this case constitutional, interpretation. It says nothing about a person’s political beliefs. It’s consistent for a person to argue that, in their view, the Constitution would permit something as a matter of constitutional law, but still be opposed to it as a matter of politics (or ethics). Not everything that the Constitution permits should actually be done.
I think Weems v United States tried to answer that.
Diversity jurisdiction is just one part of federal court jurisdiction, and has always had a dollar threshold. Civil suits against the federal government have never had a dollar threshold, so the $20 threshold would have applied to any civil action for damages against the federal government.
Still would have become outdated pretty quickly, but the constitutional provision wasn’t limited to diversity cases.
I’m suing you for $19.
That’s fine, I’ll win with a jury trial.
No you won’t, no jury for you. 7th Amendment FTW!
[Moderating]
This is an official Warning for personal attacks. And seeing as how you’re the OP, and this thread was borderline for FQ to begin with, it’s also closed.