3 ms·
Given Jefferson's remarks to Abigail Adams after pardoning everyone ever prosecuted under them, I don't know how you can draw that conclusion: "I do not know w
by psunavy03 2y ago
Given Jefferson's remarks to Abigail Adams after pardoning everyone ever prosecuted under them, I don't know how you can draw that conclusion:
"I do not know who was the particular wretch alluded to: but I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the Sedition law, because I considered & now consider that law to be a nullity as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image; and that it was as much my duty to arrest it’s execution in every stage, as it would have been to have rescued from the fiery furnace those who should have been cast into it for refusing to worship their image."
Seems the Founders did not all support that viewpoint.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Seems the Founders did not all support that viewpoint. That’s fair! But also a challenge for guessing their intents with the Second. (Notably, one of them is still on the books. Jefferson didn’t repeal. He had a personal dislike of Adams for quite some time.) What they’d think of today’s weaponry would probably vary somewhat. The Scalias, Alitos, and Thomases of the Court would rather not confront that. They seem certain of their crystal balls.
- psunavy03 2y agoThat is why originalists advocate the use of original public meaning, not original intent. The meaning of a law when passed as understood by a reasonable person of the era, not the intent or understanding of those who passed it. If you read Scalia's book, he goes into great detail about this but it boils down to a) you can't read minds as a judge and b) different people voted to pass the law for different reasons, so which ones are valid?