I’m not quite sure how to parse that but it does not strike me as a recommendation.
That’s what Thomas and Alito say, too. But there’s no such thing as an actual strict constructionist in the US. There can’t be, because a strict construction of the US Constitution explicitly prohibits strict constructionalism. Thus, anyone claiming to be a strict constructionist is lying, usually as cover for being a burn-it-all-downist.
Can you explain? Just curious…
Just a WAG, but the Constitution implicitly incorporates English Common Law, which by its nature is subject to judicial interpretation of the written law and application of precedent thereunto, as opposed to a strict reading of the law as written?
Maybe. But ISTM a strict constructionist would be duty bound to ignore such a notion, unless the words of the Constitution explicitly said so.
Strict constructionism is what justices use to justify “That right isn’t in the Constitution, therefore it doesn’t apply”. But the Ninth Amendment explicitly prohibits that line of reasoning.
Which is where “originalism” fills in the crack, so to speak: Yes there are other rights beyond what’s written here, but if the people of 1787 or 1865 could not have imagined something (or rather if WE can’t imagine they could have imagined it), then it’s just up to legislation. So, “the people of 1787 could not have imagined an objection to displaying the Ten Commandments as a root of the laws” and there you go.
This I agree with 100%.
The Louisiana parents are now suing!!
… which is good. But you just know that the State house is going to cover their costs and the settlement of the case through cuts to the education budget.
The 10 Comandments are not universal moral laws; they only apply to Jews and practitioners of religions descended from Judaism. It’s the Noahide Laws which are supposed to bind all humanity.
The Ten Commandments aren’t even that comprehensive a set of laws:
4 of them are just marketing talking points for God
Listen to your parents
Don’t kill anyone
Don’t steal anyone’s shit
Don’t fuck anyone’s wife
Don’t lie
Don’t think about stealing anyone’s shit or fucking their wife
That’s basically it. Not exactly a roadmap for building a modern legal system.
Except the catholic version is:
- 3 marketing talking points for God
- Listen to your parents
- Don’t kill anyone
- Don’t steal anyone’s shit
- Don’t fuck anyone’s wife
- Don’t lie
- Don’t think about fucking anyone’s wife
- Don’t think about stealing anyone’s shit
I strong suspect that the framers of these laws don’t entirely realize that there are different versions (or fundamentally that the original text doesn’t contain “commandment numbers”).
Which is why there aren’t ten Commandments; there are 613 of them. I’m frankly not sure where the notion of there being only ten of them even comes from.
Only sort of. It comes from the problem early Christianity had with getting converts that were not Jews and who did have a problem with all the other laws. The answer to that was to declare that since it was a new covenant the old laws no longer applied . . . despite whatever Jesus said since Jesus clearly didn’t understand Christianity compared to Paul.
The unethical seeking the support off the uneducated.
That’s the notion that some laws are different from others. Which certainly has something to do with early Christianity, but different from what I was answering.
I was answering the question of why ten? And the answer is, it says (in a different but related passage) that there were ten.
And then there’s the other set of Ten Commandments (starting at Exodus 34:14) because of all the J/E/P/D mucking around in the Torah;
- 2 talking points for God
- Observe Passover
- Sacrifice the firstborn of your livestock (and possibly also your firstborn son) to God
- Observe the Sabbath
- Observe Shauvot
- Don’t mix blood and yeast in your sacrifices
- No keeping leftovers from the Seder
- Sacrifice the first harvest of your crops to God
- No boiling goats in their mother’s milk