Textualism as practiced is already calvinball and there is little point in trying to identify rational legal arguments that may persuade the court. It is much m

Textualism as practiced is already calvinball and there is little point in trying to identify rational legal arguments that may persuade the court. It is much more explanatory to just look at the biases of the justices and assume they will reverse-engineer a textualist interpretation that supports their position. See Bruen where a lack of laws regulating guns indicates public carry is a right rooted in historical tradition vs. Dobbs where a lack of laws regulating abortion before quickening does not. [1] The conservative legal movement has turned constitutional interpretation into a shell game where choice of framing and selective use of historical examples can yield whatever result the justices already want. All of that said, the argument is that parking minimums constitute a restriction on your property rights for public use without compensation and a similar argument could be made with things that did exist at the time such as carriages. Again see Bruen where Thomas "refutes" a weapon ban by arguing handguns are more analogous to daggers than to lances. [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4187143 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4187143