4 ms·

Can you please provide links to judicial opinions or rulings that validate your interpretation of the law?

• edoo 7y ago
  If you read the federalist papers you'll note that the intention was literal, not to be reinterpreted for the times. That also makes the thousands of gun laws illegal. If you start reinterpreting the constitution that is how you go full banana republic, and everyone knows you never go full banana republic. You are supposed to change the law not reinterpret.
  • jcranmer 7y ago
    It's pretty funny to watch people try to justify "literal" readings of the text, since they often focus on interpreting just one piece of text and ignore the effects of the analysis on the rest of the text. The First Amendment very clearly binds only Congress in its literal reading: it begins "Congress shall make no law..." And there is no literal text in any subsequent amendment that might cause incorporation to the states--the Fourteenth Amendment only literally incorporates the Fifth Amendment, and that by literal repetition of the text.
• pdonis 7y ago
  The fact that legal realism--which says that the law is whatever judges say it is, even when what the judges say is patently ridiculous when compared to the actual words of the Constitution or statute--is the mainstream viewpoint in today's legal environment does not make it right.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]